Ignatius
Ignatius
1. Life.-From the date of the Apostolic Decree (Act 15:23-29) onwards, i.e. from about a.d. 50, there is absolutely no evidence as to the history of the Church of Antioch. In the time of Origen and Julius Africanus, Ignatius was considered as the second of the Antiochene bishops. Between him and Theophilus ( c. [Note: . circa, about.] 185) three bishops were usually placed-Hero, Cornelius, and Eros, of whom nothing was known but their names. Euodius was regarded as Ignatius predecessor (Harnack, Chronologie, i., Leipzig, 1897, p. 210). But as a matter of fact, as Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers2, pt. ii. vol. ii., London, 1889, p. 471) says: The dates of the first century, the accession of Euodius a.d. 42, and the accession of Ignatius a.d. 69, deserve no credit. The information to be gleaned from the Apost. Constit. vii. xlvi. 4 (ed. Funk, Paderborn, 1905), such as that Euodius was ordained bishop by St. Peter and Ignatius by St. Paul, does not seem to be of any greater value than the foregoing. St. John Chrysostom, in the panegyric which he pronounces at Antioch on St. Ignatius, supposes that Ignatius knew the apostles and received the laying on of hands from them (in S. Martyrem Ignatium, 1 and 2 [Migne, Patrologia Graeca, l. 587f.]). The Apost. Constit. and St. John Chrysostom represent the same legend in formation. The extent of Eusebius information (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iii. xxxvi. 2) was that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was his second successor, Euodius being the first. He depends for his knowledge on Origen (Hom. in Lucam, 6), and is in turn followed by Jerome (de Vir. illustr 16).
Apart from the fact that he was bishop of Antioch and the details furnished by his authentic letters, the history of Ignatius is absolutely unknown. Some critics have tried, with more zeal than discretion, to fill up the gaps in the history with conjectures, but these are quite worthless. For example, E. Bruston (Ignace dAntioche, Paris, 1897, p. 112f.) advances the theory that Ignatius was neither Greek nor Syrian, but Roman, his proof being that Ignatius name is a Latin one (cf. Forcellini-De-Vit., Onomasticon, s.v. Ignatius = Egnatius), and that he has all the characteristics of the Roman mind, which is essentially practical! Von Dobschtz (Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng. translation , 1904, p. 235f.) says, with equal justification: Ignatius is a genuine Syrian. His diction, which, for Greek, is almost intolerably affected, everywhere reveals the fiery rhythm of Syriac poetry with its wonderful richness of colouring and imagination.
In the signature of each of his seven letters, Ignatius calls himself . On the analogy of expressions like (Act 13:9), we may suppose that is not an epithet but a proper name (Lightfoot, p. 22). Zahn (p. 3) compares it with in Eusebius, HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] v. i. 9. As to when and why Ignatius took the name of , we have to confess complete ignorance.
The author of the Passion of Ignatius, entitled the Martyrium Colbertinum (Funk, ii. 276), calls him a disciple of the Apostle John and a thoroughly apostolic man, but he gives no evidence for the truth of his statements. In his Letter to Polycarp (i. 1) Ignatius seems to say that he has just met Polycarp for the first time (Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen, ii. [Paderborn, 1899] 340). As Polycarp was an Asiatic disciple of St. John, this would be a proof that Ignatius was not a co-disciple of his. Besides, Ignatius is absolutely silent on the subject of the Apostle John, which, had Ignatius known him, would be very puzzling, considering that Ignatius wrote a long letter to the Ephesians.
An attempt has been made to find in Romans, iv. 3, an indication that Ignatius was a slave. But the text has probably a spiritual and not a literal meaning (cf. Philadelphians, viii. 1; Lightfoot, p. 210). It is inconceivable that a slave should ever have been put at the head of a Christian community.
Ignatius was not a Roman citizen, since he was condemned to be thrown to the beasts. The modest expressions that Ignatius uses in speaking of himself suggest that he was not a Christian by birth, but became one later on. His previous life may have had some analogy with that of the Apostle Paul before his conversion. But for myself I am ashamed to be called one of them [i.e. the Antiochene Christians]; for neither am I worthy, being the very last of them and an untimely birth (Romans, ix. 2).* [Note: The translations of the text of Ignatius are taken from Lightfoot.] There are similar protestations of humility in Eph. xxi. 2, Trall. xiii. 1, and Smyrn. xi 1.
Eusebius places the martyrdom of Ignatius in the time of Trajan (a.d. 98-117)-a wide choice of date to which no objection can be raised (Lightfoot, p. 469f.). There seems good reason, however, for deciding on the last years of Trajans reign as the most likely date (Harnack, Chronologie, i. 406).
According to the Martyrium Colbertinum, ii. 1-2 (Funk, ii. 276), Ignatius appeared before Trajan in the 9th year of his reign (26 Jan. 106-26 Jan. 107), when the latter was passing through Antioch on a march against the Parthians (the war against the Parthians, however, only began in 112). He was condemned by the Emperor and sent to Rome, where he died on 20 Dec. 107, in the consulate of Sura and Senecio (vii. 1, p. 284). This date is debatable, for the oldest known reference to the natale of Ignatius, found in the Syriac Martyrology published by Wright, fixes the anniversary as 17 Oct. (Bolland, AS [Note: S Acta Sanctorum (Bollandus).] , Nov. i. 1 [1894], p. lxii. [text restored by Duchesne]: , ). The place of the martyrdom is not mentioned. Wrights Martyrology is certainly not later than the middle of the 4th cent., and appears to have been compiled in Antioch. This date (17 Oct.) is confirmed by St. John Chrysostom and other writers and documents (H. Quentin, Les Martyrologes historiques, Paris, 1908, p. 548). Lightfoot says (p. 434): The only anniversary, which has any claims to consideration as the true day of the martyrdom, is October 17. If, then, the date of 20 Dec. for the martyrdom of Ignatius is not correct, no reliance can be placed on the date of the consulate of Sura and Senecio. The main part of the Martyrium Colbertinum belongs to the 5th or, at the earliest, the end of the 4th century. For its chronology it depends on Eusebius Chronicle, and even it gives no guarantee of absolute exactitude. All one can say is that Eusebius placed the martyrdom of Ignatius in the time of Trajan. Nothing more definite is given.
No historical value can be attached to the rest of the Martyrium Colbertinum, or to the Martyrium Vaticanum (which is independent of the foregoing and perhaps dates from the 5th cent.), or to the Latin, Armenian, or Greek texts where the two Martyria are combined (on this worthless hagiographic literature see Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt. i. pp. 143-145).
Apart from these documents, we have no information as to the circumstances in which the bishop of Antioch was imprisoned and then sent to Rome. But, if the martyrdom took place a.d. 110-117 we have the evidence of Trajan for this period, in his letter to Pliny (Pliny, Ep. xcviii.) defining the legal position of Christianity: Christianity is a religio illicita, but public action can be taken against Christians only by means of the delatio; Puniendi sunt, si deferantur et arguantur. It may be supposed, then, that Ignatius was delatus to the Roman magistrates of Antioch.
In Eph. xxi. 2, he writes: Pray for the church which is in Syria, whence I am led a prisoner to Rome-I who am the very last of the faithful there; in Rom. ix. 1: Remember in your prayers the church which is in Syria, which hath God for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop-He and your love. Some time after-i.e. on his arrival in Troas-Ignatius seems to have given up all anxiety about the Church of Antioch: Seeing that in answer to your prayer and to the tender sympathy which ye have in Christ Jesus, it hath been reported to me that the church which is in Antioch of Syria hath peace, it is becoming for you as a church of God, to appoint a deacon to go thither as Gods ambassador, that he may congratulate them when they are assembled together, and may glorify the Name (Philad. x. 1). He writes to Polycarp: Seeing that the church which is in Antioch of Syria hath peace, as it hath been reported to me, through your prayers, I myself also have been the more comforted since God hath banished my care (vii. 1). To the Smyrnaeans he is even more explicit: It is meet that your church should appoint, for the honour of God, an ambassador of God that he may go as far as Syria and congratulate them because they are at peace, and have recovered their proper stature, and their proper bulk hath been restored to them ( ; xi. 2); and he adds: It seemed to me a fitting thing that ye should send one of your own people with a letter, that he might join with them in giving glory for the calm which by Gods will had overtaken them, and because they were already reaching a haven through your prayers (xi. 3). If it were a question of a persecution limited to Antioch, it would not be very clear how peace could have restored its stature to the Church of Antioch, i.e. its spiritual stature, in the sense of Eph. inscr.: . We are, then, led to suppose that it is not peace after persecution but peace after discord that is meant. With Ignatius gone, the Church of Antioch was left without a pastor, and the community () had become disunited and was in a state of schism. The insistence with which Ignatius speaks of the return of the repentant rebels to union with God and communion with the bishop (Philad. iii. 2, viii. 1, Smyrn. ix. 1) is perhaps the consequence of the painful experience he has just passed through in Antioch.
Ignatius, though arrested and condemned in Antioch, is sent to Rome. He knows that he is condemned to be thrown to the beasts (Rom. v. 1-2). In Rom. iv. 1, he begs the Christians of Rome not to intervene to rob him of the martyrdom he awaits, and it is thus obvious that he must have been tried and found guilty in Antioch. The fact of his being condemned in Antioch and yet undergoing his sentence in Rome is not unique. Rome gathered victims from all the ends of the earth to take part in the cruel games of her amphi-theatre.
In Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians, we find that Ignatius, on his arrival in Philippi in Macedonia, was no longer alone but in the same convoy as other Christians in chains (Phil. i. 1, ix. 1, xiii. 2). The journey from Antioch to Rome was made partly by land and partly by sea (Rom. v. 1); Ignatius was in chains, and a squad of ten soldiers guarded him night and day and spared him no ill-treatment (Rom. v. 1; cf. Passio Sanct Perpetu, iii. 6: concussurae militum).
The first town we know of Ignatius passing through is Philadelphia in proconsular Asia (Philad. vii. 1). Of the itinerary he followed between Antioch and that town we know nothing.
After Philadelphia we find him in Smyrna, where Polycarp is bishop. Later he thanks the Smyrnaeans effusively for the welcome they gave him and his two companions Philo and Rheus Agathopus (Smyrn. ix. 2, x. 1). In Smyrna he made a comparatively long stay-time enough to get to know the Smyrnaean families he greets at the end of his letter (xiii. 1, 2). While he was in Smyrna the neighbouring churches sent deputations to greet him and console him in his imprisonment. From Smyrna itself Ignatius writes a letter of thanks to each of the churches who had sent delegates: the first is the Epistle to the Ephesians, the second the Letter to the Church of Magnesia on the Maeander, the third the Epistle to the Trallians. From Smyrna, too, Ignatius sends his Letter to the Romans, which alone bears a date-the ninth day before the Kalends of September, i.e. 24 Aug. (Rom. x. 3).
The zeal of the neighbouring churches to greet Ignatius is very remarkable. For when ye heard that I was on my way from Syria, in bonds for the sake of the common Name and hope ye were eager to visit me, writes Ignatius to the Ephesians (i. 2). The Ephesians sent their bishop, Onesimus (i. 3), their deacon, Burrhus (ii. 1), and several other Christians-Crocus, Euplus, Fronto, etc. (ib.). The Magnesians sent their bishop, Damas, the presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and their deacon Zotion (ii.). At the end of his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius writes: The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnaeans. Yea, and all the other churches salute you (xv.). The Trallians sent their bishop, Polybius (i. 1). To them Ignatius writes: I salute you from Smyrna, together with the churches of God that are present with me; men who refreshed me in all ways both in flesh and in spirit (xii. 1). The way in which these three Asian churches vied with each other to pay court to Ignatius leads us to believe that other churches probably followed suit: I write to all the churches, and I bid all men know, that of my own free will I die for God (Rom. iv. 1); and again: My spirit saluteth you, and the love of the churches which received me in the name of Jesus Christ, not as a mere wayfarer: for even those churches which did not lie on my route after the flesh went before me from city to city (ix. 3).
The Epistle to the Romans is not a reply to a direct deputation sent to Ignatius by the Church of Rome. Ignatius has been informed of the Romans feelings towards him and of their design to snatch him from martyrdom if possible, and he forestalls them by begging them to do nothing. He sends them the letter by the hands of Ephesians who have apparently told him of the Romans plans (x. 1), and who have means of transporting the letter to Rome. Ignatius uses this means, although he knows that Antiochene devotees have gone straight to Rome. He says of them: As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome unto the glory of God, I believe that ye have received instructions; whom also apprise that I am near (x. 2).
From Smyrna, Ignatius and his guard Journey to Troas, probably by sea. From there Ignatius dispatches three letters: the first to the Church of Philadelphia (The love of the brethren which are in Troas saluteth you, xi. 2); the second to the Smyrnaeans; and the third to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. In the last letter Ignatius apologizes for not being able to write to all the churches, the reason being that he has just been suddenly ordered to embark at once for Neapolis in Macedonia, the port for Philippi.
Before leaving Troas, Ignatius receives comforting news of his beloved Church of Antioch. He suggests that Polycarp should depute one of the Smyrnaeans to go to Antioch to show the love that the Church of Smyrna bears to the Church of Syria (vii. 2). I salute him that shall be appointed to go to Syria, he writes. Grace shall be with him always, and with Polycarp who sendeth him (viii. 2). He begs Polycarp to write to the churches lying between Smyrna and Antioch, enjoining them to send messengers or letters to the Church of Antioch as a token of their love (viii. 1). He writes to the same effect to the Philadelphians. As a church of God they ought to elect a deacon and commission him to carry their congratulations to the devotees assembled together at Antioch and to glorify the Name with them. If they do this, they will be following the example of several churches, some of whom have sent a bishop, and some presbyters or deacons (x. 1-2).
From Neapolis Ignatius is taken to Philippi. A few details of this journey may be gleaned from Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians, written in reply to a letter sent from the Philippians to Polycarp (iii. 1): Ye wrote to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, asking that if any one should go to Syria he might carry thither the letters from you. And this I will do, if I get a fit opportunity, either I myself, or he whom I shall send to be ambassador on your behalf also (xiii. 1). From this passage we may infer that Ignatius wrote to Polycarp during his stay in Philippi; and that the Philippians wrote to the Church of Antioch at the same time as to Polycarp. The Philippians had given Ignatius a hearty welcome, and Polycarp commends them for having received the followers of the true Love and escorted them on their way those men encircled in saintly bonds which are the diadems of them that be truly chosen of God and our Lord (1:1).
By the time Polycarp wrote this letter, Ignatius had left Philippi and was en route for Rome: Moreover, concerning Ignatius himself and those that were with him, if ye have any sure tidings, certify us (13:2). It would be difficult to believe that this request for news of Ignatius could by any possibility be later than the receipt of the tidings of his death. It is true that in another passage Polycarp commends the patience of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and compares it with that of St. Paul and the other apostles, adding: all these ran not in vain they are in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered (9:1, 2); but it is not unlikely that the last phrase refers only to St. Paul and the other apostles. On this hypothesis, then, Polycarp would not know the fate of Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus till after the dispatch of his letter to the Philippians.
From the time he left Philippi we know nothing further of Ignatius. Origen says that he fought against the boasts in Rome during the persecution. Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iii. xxxvi. 3) repeats this statement, and adds that in Rome Ignatius became food for the beasts. In this he was certainly influenced by Ignatius letter to the Romans (I am Gods wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, 4:1). This Epistle is the sole extant reference to the martyrdom of Ignatius. Even in Rome itself there seems to have been no note made of the incident.
From Jerome we learn that Ignatius was buried in Antioch: Reliquiae corporis eius in Antiochia iacent extra portam Daphniticam in cmeterio (de Vir. illustr. 16). This was written in a.d. 392, and, as far as we know, Jerome did not take his information from any written source, but probably speaks de visu.
In his panegyric on Ignatius pronounced in Antioch (386-97), St. John Chrysostom celebrates the triumphal return of the martyr to his episcopal city, and the honours that were paid him by the cities on the route [Patr. Graeca, 1. 594]. The orator no doubt takes his clue from spectacles of the same nature seen for some years previously in different centres of the Eastern Empire. It is quite evident that the remains of the holy martyr could not have been brought back in this way in the very thick of the persecution (H. Delehaye, Les Origines du culte des martyrs, Brussels, 1912, p. 69; so also Lightfoot, p. 431f.).
In the time of Theodosius II. (408-450), Ignatius remains (or bones believed to be his) were transferred from the cemetery extra muros to the ancient Temple of Fortune, now turned into a basilica (Euagrius, HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] i. 16 [ed. Bidez-Parmentier, London, 1899, p. 25f.]).
The whole question of the transference of Ignatius bones from Rome to Antioch is a difficult one. Delehaye writes: It is difficult to come to any finding on the question of the reality of the transference of St. Ignatius remains from Rome and of the period when this took place (loc. cit.). If St. Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome, and if, as Euagrius says, he met his death in the amphitheatre of Rome, finding his tomb in the bellies of the wild beasts in fulfilment of his own wish, one may suppose that nothing remained of his body. In Rom 4:2 he wrote: Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my sepulchre and may leave no part of my body behind. Of course one may always agree with Euagrius that at least Ignatius tougher hones were saved.
As to the time of the transference, if it did take place, we are equally at sea. By the end of the 4th cent., as we have seen above, public opinion was quite decided that Ignatius remains were in cmeterio in Antioch. But the transference of the remains in the 2nd or 3rd cent. would be an anachronism, and in the 4th cent. some note would undoubtedly have been taken of the fact. We must conclude, then, that, if the remains of Ignatius preserved in Antioch are authentic, it is quite possible that Ignatius did not suffer martyrdom in Rome at all, but returned to Antioch and died there. The existence of his tomb in Antioch is more probable on this supposition than on the hypothesis of the transference of his remains from Rome to Antioch.
2. Manuscripts and YSS of the Epistles.-The words of Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians (13:2) are the earliest evidence of a collection of Ignatius letters: The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him, and others as many as we had by us, we send unto you, according as ye gave charge; the which are subjoined to this letter; from which ye will be able to gain great advantage. For they comprise faith and endurance and every kind of edification, which pertaineth unto out Lord. Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] 3:36) apparently knows of a collection of seven of Ignatius letters, with Polycarps Letter to the Philippians, which is identical with our present group of letters, even down to the order in which the Epistles me given: Eph., Magn., Trall., Rom., Philad., Polyc., Smyrn., and Polycarps Philippians.
This original collection of letters fell into the hands of a forger, who made interpolations in the text of the. authentic Epistles and also manufactured six additional letters-Mary of Cassobola (there is a Cilician town called Castabala, possibly the same as Cassobola) to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary of Cassobola, to the Tarsians, to the Philippians, to the Antiochenes, and to Hero the Deacon. We have thus an Ignatian collection of thirteen letters. The identification of the forger with the unknown compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions is atheory highly favoured by Funk. He regards him as having been a Syrian Christian of the beginning of the 5th cent., probably belonging to an Apollinarist order, and he even finds in his work points of contact with Theodore of Mopsuestia (Patr. apostol. opera, ii. pp. ix-xiii, and Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen, ii. [Paderborn, 1899], pp. 347-359).
Three other spurious letters of Ignatius may be passed over quickly-one supposed to be addressed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the Virgins reply, and two addressed to the Apostle John. The oldest witness to these three Latin letters is Denis of Chartreux ( 1471); the oldest manuscript of them dates from the 12th century. These Epistles are usually regarded as forgeries of Latin provenance and of the Middle Ages.
In 1845, Cureton published Eph., Magn., and Rom. in a Syriac version, which comprises the three authentic Epistles in an abridged form. Cureton put forward the hypothesis that the Syriac text represents all that is authentically Ignatian, and that consequently Trall., Philad., Polyc., and Smyrn. are spurious compositions. This theory was accepted for some time by quite a number of critics, but it has now been abandoned: the three Syriac letters are nothing more nor less than an abridgment of the three Greek Epistles. (These apocryphal texts maybe found in the editions of Zahn, Lightfoot, and Funk.)
We may now turn our undivided attention to the Greek collection of the seven authentic letters.
The authenticity of these Epistles was for long a matter of keen controversy. At first only the Latin collection comprising the Epistles to the Apostle John and the Virgin Mary, or the three apocryphal letters published in Paris in 1495, were known. Three years later (1498) Lefvre dEtaples published in Latin the collection comprising the thirteen spurious or interpolated letters, the Greek text of which was printed at Dillingen in 1557. This collection was speedily recognized to be unauthentic, but, though the Magdeburg Centuriators repudiated the thirteen letters en bloc, Baronius and Bellarmin defended them en bloc. The Protestant Scultetus, in his Medullae theologiae patrum syntagma (Neustadt, 1609) was of opinion that only the seven letters attested by Eusebius were authentic. In 1646 Vossius published the authentic Greek text of six of the seven letters, the Greek text of the seventh-the Letter to the Romans-being published by Ruinart in 1689. But it was a long time before the authenticity of these seven letters was generally accepted. It would be useless to retrace the history of this painful controversy with its tedious conflict of confessional (Saumaise, Blondel, Daill) or pseudo-critical (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius) prejudices, which was finally terminated by Zahns Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha, 1873) and F. X. Funks Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe (Tbingen, 1883). E. Brustons objections and conjectures (Ignace dAntioche) were never taken seriously, nor were those of D. Vlter (Die ignatianischen Briefe, Tbingen, 1892). See, however, M. Rackl, Christologie des heiligen Ignatius von Antiochien, Freiburg i. B., 1914, pp. 11-86.
A reply to the difficulties raised by the opponents of the authenticity of the letters will be found in J. Rvilles Les Origines de lpiscopat (pp. 442-81) and in E. Henneckes Handbuch zu den neutest. Apokryphen (Tbingen, 1904, p. 191f.). Difficulties naturally exist, writes R. Knopf, but they are not to be weighed against the uninventible form of these writings, the originality of the man which seems to speak forth from the pulsing lines, and the wealth of personal references which entwine the letters (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, Tbingen, 1905, p. 37; cf. O. Sthlin, Christl. griech. Litt., Munich, 1914, p. 975).
The seven Epistles of Ignatius are attested, as we have said, first by the Epistle of Polycarp, and then, at the beginning of the 4th cent., by Eusebius. Between these two witnesses we may insert Irenaeus (adv. Haer. v. xxviii. 4), who does not name Ignatius but cites his Letter to the Romans: Quemadmodum quidam de nostris dixit, propter martyrium in Deum adiudicatus ad bestias, quoniam frumentum sum Christi et per dentes bestiarum molor ut mundus panis inveniar. Harnack thinks that Clement of Alexandria is so closely dependent on Ignatius that he must have read him (cf. Paedag, i. vi. 38, ii. viii. 63, Excerpt. Theod. 74 with Trall. viii. 1, Eph. 17:1, 19:2); so also Origen (de Orat. 20 = Rom 3:3; Hom. vi. in Luc. = Eph. 19:1; in Cant. Cantic. prolog. = Rom 7:2). Harnack ignores all doubtful witnesses like Melito, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, the Lyons Martyrs, and the Acts of St. Perpetua. We shall pass over all attestations later than Eusebius (see Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der altchristl. Litteratur, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 79-86).
The question whether Lucian the satirist, in lines 169-170 of his de Morte Peregrini, was thinking of Ignatius or even had direct knowledge of his letters is a point on which one hesitates to decide. Funk (Patr. apostol. i. pp. lx-lxi) and Rville (Origines de lpiscopat, Paris, 1895, p. 448f.) incline to an affirmative view, while Harnack (Ueberlieferung, p. 79) remains doubtful.
Smyrn. iii. 3-xii. 1 is preserved in the Papyrus-kodex 10581 (5th cent.) of Berlin (see C. Schmidt and W. Schubart, Altchristl. Texte, Berlin, 1910, pp. 3-12). The Greek text of all the authentic letters except the Epistle to the Romans is given in the Codex Laurentianus, lvii. 7 (11th cent.), fol. [Note: folio.] 242-252, which was used by Vossius for the editio princeps. The manuscript G. V. 14 (16th cent.) in the Casanate Library is a copy of the Laurentianus. The letter to the Romans is given in the Paris gr. 1491 (10th cent.), which was used by Ruinart. The separation of the Letter to the Romans from the six other authentic letters is perhaps due to the fact that the first collection of Ignatius letters was made in Asia-witness what Polycarp says in his Philippians-and thus did not contain the Epistle to the Romans (so Harnack, Ueberlieferung, p. 76.).
The Latin version published by Ussher (Oxford, 1644) was the work of Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln (13th cent.); it was translated from an excellent Greek manuscript now lost, and is an extremely close rendering of the original. Ussher had at his disposal two Latin Manuscripts -one the lost Codex Montacutianus and the other the existing Codex Caiensis, 395 of Cambridge (15th cent.). Grossetestes version comprises the first six authentic letters and the Martyrium Colbertinum, including the Letter to the Romans.
We also possess the seven letters in an Armenian translation possibly dating from the 5th cent., and some fragments of a Syriac translation which formed the basis for the Armenian rendering. Lightfoot and Harnack think that the Syriac collection of Eph., Magn., and Rom. in an abridged form published by Cureton is an excerpt from this Syriac translation of the seven authentic letters.
3. Ecclesiastical position
(1) Church organization.-If one had to prove that the Christianity of the beginning of the 2nd cent. was a city-religion one would find ample material in the letters of Ignatius. The visible unity is the Church, and each church bears the name of the city where it is established: the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, the church which is in Magnesia on the Maeander, the holy church which is in Tralles of Asia, the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ which is in Philadelphia of Asia, the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the Beloved which is in Smyrna of Asia-so Ignatius styles the churches in the inscriptions of his letters.
The Church of Antioch is called the church which is in Antioch of Syria (Philad. x. l, Smyrn. xi. 1), but it is also spoken of as the church which is in Syria (Magn. xiv., Eph. 21:2, Rom 9:1). Ignatius calls himself bishop from Syria (Rom 2:2). This has been taken as an indication that Ignatius was bishop not only of Antioch but of the whole province of Syria, Syria being understood as including several lesser churches and several lesser bishops (K. Lbeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients, Mnster, 1901, p. 43; Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, Leipzig, 1902, i. 384). The text of Philad. x. 2, which speaks of the churches which are nearest ( ), does not say which city they are near; they may be churches of Asia or even of Cilicia (H. de Genouillac, LEglise chrtienne au temps de saint Ignace dAntioche, Paris, 1907, p. 67f.). Even if it were proved that Syria contained other churches than Antioch, e.g. the churches of Apamia or Bera, the bishop of Antioch might still have considered himself emphatically the bishop of Syria, without being in any sense a metropolitan. To speak of a metropolitan bishop in the time of Ignatius is an anachronism.
The Christian community bearing the name of the church of such and such a city is not a purely mystical body, but a visible unity having frequent assemblies. Let meetings () be held more frequently, Ignatius writes to Polycarp (4:2, 3). Seek out all men by name. Let slaves not desire to be set free at the public cost ( ; note the expression , a synonym for the local church [Philad. i. 1]. If the community can buy out slaves, it must have a common purse). In the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (6:2), the heretics are reproached for acting contrary to the Spirit of God: They have no care for love (), none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. In these words we have a rsum of the gospel of love, and an indication of the practical assistance rendered by every Christian community to those in need. Ignatius begs Polycarp to call together the faithful into a sort of deliberative assembly () to elect () a messenger to go to Antioch (vii. 2; cf. Philad. x. 1 and Smyrn. xi. 2). The church assembles , in one place: not to come is to show pride and to stand self-condemned (Eph 5:2): to come is to cast down the powers of Satan (13:1). The faithful must give the Gentiles () no occasion to calumniate Gods people ( , Trall. viii. 2); they must abide in concord and in common prayer (xii. 2); they must flee evil arts (); women must be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit (Polyc. v. 1). If a Christian desires to abide in chastity to the honour of the flesh of the Lord, he may do so, but on condition that he does it without pride (v. 2; this is a somewhat remarkable recommendation, as it is a repudiation of the Encratite conception of the Christian life). Each church has its widows, whom it has to care for (Polyc. iv. 1; Smyrn. xiii. I). Ignatius recommends that those who marry-male or female-should not enter into wedlock without the consent of the bishop, for marriage should be after the Lord and not after concupiscence (Polyc. v. 2).
Each church has a bishop at its head; this is true not only of Antioch, but also of Ephesus (Eph 1:3), Magnesia (Magn. ii.), Tralles (Trall. i. 1), Philadelphia (Philad. i. 1), and Smyrna (Smyrn. xii. 1). Next to the bishop there is a or group of : so at Ephesus (Eph. 4:1, 20:2), Magnesia (Magn. ii., xiii. 1), Tralles (Trall. ii. 2, xiii. 2), Philadelphia (Philad. vii. 1), and Smyrna (Smyrn. xii. 2). Under the presbyters, there are deacons (Eph 2:1, Magn. ii., Trall. ii. 3, iii. 1, vii. 2, Philad., subscr., vii. 1, x. 1, Smyrn. viii. 1, xii. 2).
The Epistles are a perpetual appeal to unity on the part of the Christian community by submission to the deacons, the presbytery, and the bishop. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians: I have received your whole multitude ( ) in the person of Onesimus (Eph 1:3). They will be sanctified if they submit to their bishop and presbytery (2:2), if they and their bishop have but one thought, if their presbytery is united to the bishop as its strings to a lyre (4:1). The bishop is to be regarded as the steward, whom the proprietor () has entrusted with the management of his house (); and even as the Master Himself (vi. 1). In Magn. (ii.) Ignatius commends Zotion the Deacon for submitting to the bishop as unto the grace of God and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ. The presbyters, again, are subject to their bishop, however young he may be (iii. 1). The bishop is but the visible bishop; above him is the invisible Bishop, God the Father, the universal Bishop ( , iii. 1, 2). The bishop presides, and thus takes the place of God; the presbyters represent the council () of the apostles; the deacons are entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ (vi. 1: a service under Jesus Christ [Lightfoot, ii. 120]). The Magnesians are to continue in union with their revered bishop, and with the fitly wreathed spiritual circlet of the presbytery, and with the deacons who walk after God (xiii. 1). The same advice is found again in Trall. (2:1-2, 3:1, 12:2, 13:2), (Philad. (2:1, 3:2, 7:1), and Smyrn. (8:1, 12:2).
The ecclesiology of Ignatius does not regard union and discipline merely as a means of sanctification but as the condition of Christianity. Some call their chief bishop, but in everything act apart from him, and do not assemble themselves together lawfully according to commandment ( , Magn. iv.). Neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters (vii. 1). Apart from the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons, there is not even the name of a church ( , Trall, iii. 1). Similar declarations may be found in Philad. (iii. 2). To the Smyrnaeans Ignatius writes (viii. 1-2): Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid () eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people () be. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast (; i.e. eucharist). The Letter to Polycarp contains a still more striking piece of advice: Please the Captain in whose army ye serve, from whom also ye will receive your pay. Let none of you be found a deserter (vi. 2).
A. Michiels (LOrigine de lpiscopat, Louvain, 1900, pp. 396-98) has tried to show that Ignatius regards this three-grade hierarchy-and notably the episcopate-as of Divine institution. But Ignatius does not look at the problem from this point of view at all. He regards the Church as a sort of extension of the gospel by the apostles: I take refuge in the gospel as the flesh of Jesus and in the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church (Philad. v. 1). The Church is the visible realization of salvation: For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the bishop; and as many as shall repent and enter into the unity of the Church, these also shall be of God, that they may be living after Jesus Christ (iii. 2). And if any man followeth one that maketh a schism (), he doth not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walketh in strange doctrine ( ) he hath no fellowship with the passion (iii. 3). This is equivalent to saying that union with the local church, under the authority of the bishop, is the sine qua non for justification by the blood of Christ, for inheriting the Kingdom of God, and for life after Jesus Christ. Union with the Church is thus not a matter of ecclesiastical law or of individual choice, but one condition of salvation. If this is the view taken by Ignatius, how could he help believing that the visible and hierarchical Church was instituted by the will of God? He has an intensely clear perception that the mind of God for mans salvation has expressed itself not in any mere doctrine but in a divinely instituted society with a divinely authorized hierarchy. This is the mind of God so clearly that he who would run in harmony with the divine purpose must perforce have merged his individuality in the fellowship of the Church and submitted his wilfulness to her government (C. Gore, The Ministry of the Christian Church2, London, 1888-89, p. 299).
J. Rville (Les Origines de lpiscopat, pp. 508-519) is very firm on the authenticity of the Ignatian letters, but sets himself the task of minimizing the witness they bear to the three-grade hierarchy and principally to the monarchical episcopate. First of all he holds that this episcopate took its rise in Asia, and that in the time of Ignatius it did not exist or scarcely existed outside Asia; he concedes, however, that Antioch had a monarchical episcopate. Let us say at the very beginning that nowhere-not even in his Letter to the Romans-does Ignatius lead us to think that the monarchical episcopate was found only in Syria or Asia: he even suggests that such an episcopate exists everywhere, when he says to the Ephesians: Even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ ( , Eph 3:2; for the meaning of , cf. Rom 6:1 : ). Rville is wrong in saying that the monarchical episcopate makes its entry into the history of the Church at the beginning of the 2nd cent., for in Ignatius letters it is already an established institution. And even supposing Ignatius gives us his ideal rather than the ecclesiastic reality of his time, this ideal is merely the submission, union, and perfect conformity of all to the bishop in each church; it is not the existence of a single bishop, for that is already an accomplished fact in each church. Ignatius testimony presents us with the monarchical episcopate as firmly rooted, completely beyond dispute. He speaks of the bishops as established in the farthest parts of the earth. He knows of no non-episcopal area (Gore, op. cit., p. 300f.). Harnacks conclusions on this point are hesitating (Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 60-63).
Each church has common worship. If the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church? (Eph 5:2). The assembly is above all a gathering together for prayer, for thanksgiving to God and for his glory ( , xiii. 1), prayer for all men that they may find God (x. 1), for the other churches (xxi. 2), or for any private individual (xx. 1). In the assembly there is to be but one prayer, one supplication, one mind in common (Magn. vii. 1). And do ye, each and all, form yourselves into a chorus ( ) that being harmonious in concord and taking the keynote of God ( ) ye may in unison () sing with one voice ( , Eph 4:2; this metaphor is to be understood of the unanimity of the Christians in each church, but it presupposes also the use of singing in Christian assemblies). The bishop presides at the assembly (Smyrn. viii. 1-2); it is he who sits in the chief place (, Magn. vi. 1).
Ignatius does not tell us the procedure for the election of a deacon, presbyter, or bishop, but three times over (Philad. x. 1, Smyrn. xi. 2, Polyc. vii. 2) the word is used to express the method by which the assembly elects an ambassador to go to some distant church; it is not a far cry to suppose that the members of the hierarchy were elected in the same way by the general vote. But Ignatius believes that God ratifies this choice and the one elected is the elect of God; he congratulates the bishop of Philadelphia on having been invested with the ministry which pertaineth to the common weal ( ), not of himself or through men, nor yet for vain glory, but in the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Philad. i.; this is not an allusion to party factions, as Rville maintains, but an echo of St. Paul [Gal 1:1] and an assimilation of the episcopate to the apostolate).
Nowhere in Ignatius Epistles is there any mention of Christians credited with personal charismata, nor is there any word of local or itinerant prophets such as we find in the apostolic period (C. H. Turner, Studies in Early Church History, Oxford, 1912, p. 22f.). The bishop, according to Ignatius, has the sole right of speaking in the name of the Spirit. As von Dobschtz says: It is interesting to see how in this quite Catholicminded bishop [Ignatius], who thinks only of the great of the Old Testament past as prophets, there yet speaks to the Churches of Asia Minor a minister of the spirit (), living wholly in ecstasy and revelations (Eph. 21., Trall. v., Philad. vii., Polyc. ii.) (Dobschtz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, p. 238).
Baptism is mentioned (Polyc. 6:2) as a compact as binding as the relation of soldier to militia. No baptism may take place without the bishop (Smyrn. viii. 2). The Eucharist may not be celebrated without the bishop: Let that he held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it (viii. 1). The one to whom the Eucharist is committed is someone lower than the bishop: apparently a presbyter. To celebrate the Eucharist is called (viii. 2). Mention is made of it again in Eph. 20:2: that ye may obey the bishop and the presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread ( ), which is the medicine of immortality ( ) and the antidote that we should not die but live for over in Jesus Christ.
In the Letter to the Philadelphians, again, we find: Be careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood ) (iv.). The text or Smyrn. vi. 2-vii. 1 is less clear: the heretics abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God ( ) perish by their questionings. By Ignatius means the Incarnation; the gift of God is the redemption of man through the incarnation and death of Christ (Lightfoot, ii. 307). To talk of the Eucharist being the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ is a very direct expression of eucharistic realism, but it may have a secondary meaning and be used as a metaphor to designate the presence of Christ in the Church (C. Gore, The Body of Christ, London, 1901, p. 292f.). The ministry of the deacons stands in close relation with the celebration of the Eucharist. They are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ; they are not deacons of meats and drinks but servants of the Church of God (Trall. ii. 3), might he taken to refer to the eucharistic liturgy, but this interpretation is extremely conjectural, and mystery probably means faith (cf. Rom 7:3, where the terms and , and refer to Christ in heaven).
(2) The false teachers.-The unity in each church is contrasted with the divisions among heretics. Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, praises his flock for their orderly conduct ( ), for living according to truth, and letting no heresy have a home among them ( , Eph 6:2). Ignatius, too, congratulates the Ephesians on the fact that there has never been any dispute among them ( ), and that they have always lived after God (viii. 1). But there are false teachers, men who bear the Christian name and yet act in a manner unworthy of God. These men are to be shunned as wild-beasts; for they are mad dogs, biting by stealth (vii. 1). Ignatius praises the Ephesians for not allowing them to sow bad seed among them and for stopping their ears so as not to hear them (ix. 1). Woe to him who through evil doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for he shall go into unquenchable fire; and in like manner also shall he that hearkeneth unto him (xvi. 2).
In his Letter to the Magnesians Ignatius gives some more definite characteristics of these false teachers. He seems to make a distinction between (1) and (2) (Magn. viii. 1). But this antithesis is probably purely verbal, being the equivalent of , and both terms recalling 1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 4:7, Tit 1:14. So is probably an echo of Tit 3:9 and possibly of 1Co 5:7, Ignatius thus making use of St. Pauls language to designate the errors of his time. In the same Epistle Ignatius adds: For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace-an expression which might be taken as meaning that the are Judaistic errors, but this would be an abuse of the term , which is also taken from St. Paul (Gal 1:13), and is diverted from its proper sense to signify here life without the grace of redemption. The Magnesians are to live after Christ and not appeal to the prophets as an excuse for living otherwise, for even the holy prophets lived after Christ (viii. 2). They must no longer (i.e. live as a Jew-without grace, ix. 1), but learn to live as beseemeth Christianity ( ; the first example of the use of ), knowing that whoso is called by another name besides this, is not of God (x. 1). They are to reject the old leaven ( ), and betake themselves to the new, which is Jesus Christ (x. 2). It is absurd to pronounce the name of Christ and practise Judaism (), for Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity (x. 3). Ignatius concludes his argument by saying: I would have you be on your guard betimes, that ye fall not into the snares of vain doctrine (); but be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection (xi.). The homogeneity of this exposition suggests that the false teaching Ignatius has in mind is Docetism, and that it is the Docetists that he accuses of judaizing, not that there was a party of Docetists on one side and a party of Judaizers on the other.
In his Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius returns to the same subject: Take only Christian food ( ), and abstain from strange herbage, which is heresy (vi. 1). Not indeed that I have known of any such thing [as heresy] among you (viii. 1). Jesus Christ is a descendant of David and the son of Mary; He was born, ate and drank, suffered, died on the Cross, and was truly () raised from the dead (ix. 1-2). The heretics Ignatius has in view deny the reality of the humanity of Christ ( , x.), and herein lies their error-Docetism. Shun ye therefore those vile offshoots that gender a deadly fruit, whereof if a man taste, forthwith he dieth (xi. 1).
In Phil. ii. 1 we find similar advice with regard to the , those noxious herbs, which are not the husbandry of Jesus Christ (iii. 1). If anyone interprets the prophets in the sense of Judaism ( ), the Philadelphians are not to listen; for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised (vi. 1). The Docetists whom Ignatius accuses of judaizing are uncircumcised-apparently Greeks.
Again in Smyrn. ii., Ignatius repeats that Christ suffered really ( ), really rose again ( ), and did not suffer only in appearance ( ) as certain unbelievers say (here the reference is apparently to the same Docetists as are described in Trall.). If it was only in semblance ( ) that Christ lived His life on earth, then it is only in semblance that Ignatius is in chains ( , iv. 2); but Christs Passion was as real as Ignatius, and what profit is it to him if men praise him and blaspheme the Lord, not confessing that He was a bearer of flesh? (v. 2). Here we have an indication that Docetists were to be found in Smyrna and that they were anxious to deal kindly with the captive Ignatius, but he would have none of them. The names of these men are the names of infidels ( ), which he will not even write. Far be it from me even to remember them, until they repent and return to the passion (v. 3), i.e. to faith in the reality of the Passion of Christ. Note that the Docetists he denounces had not penetrated to Ephesus, they had met with no success in Tralles, and Ignatius puts the Smyrnaeans on their guard against these wild beasts in human form ( ). The Smyrnaeans are not to welcome them (), nor even to meet them (), but to pray for their conversion, however difficult such conversion may be (iv. 1). I have learned, he writes to the Ephesians (ix. 1), that certain persons passed through you from yonder (: here again, as in Smyrn., he mentions no names. The heretics may possibly have come from Smyrna, and, in any case, they infest Asia and are an equal peril to the Philippians. There is nothing to prove that Ignatius did not become acquainted with them in Antioch). In the Letter to the Romans, no heretics are mentioned.
The heretics denounced by Ignatius in Asia, and perhaps more definitely in Smyrna, are not Judaizers in the proper sense of the word, for they only judaize to the extent of denying the flesh of Christ and the redemptive power of His Passion. They are at war with the hierarchy, are dissenters from the Church, and seem to have separated themselves voluntarily. Ignatius speaks of them as outside the sanctuary ( ), i.e. without the bishop and presbytery and deacons (Trall. vii. 2). Wheresoever the bishop is, there the people should be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church ( , Smyrn. viii. 2). Here we have for the first time in history the term , in the sense of universal Church, the universality of the Church throughout the world being contrasted with the local churches where each has its own bishop (Lightfoot, pp. 310-312; cf. Smyrn. i. 2: ). The epithet is used in a geographical sense, and not yet in its ecclesiastical sense, where catholic is contrasted with heretical (cf. 1 Clem. lix. 2 and Didache, ix. 4).
4. Sources of Ignatius teaching.-Among the sources of Ignatius teaching, first place must be given to St. Paul. In his letters Ignatius never fails to do special honour to the churches he addresses if they have received a letter from St. Paul, e.g. the Ephesians (Eph. viii. 1, xii. 2) and the Romans (Rom. iv. 3). In all his letters we find reminiscences of the Pauline Epistles, esp. 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., Gal., Philippians , 1 and 2 Thess., Philem., Eph., Colossians , 1 and 2 Tim., and Titus (see E. von der Goltz, Ignatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theologe [= Texts and Studies xii. 3, Leipzig, 1894], pp. 178-194, who gives parallel texts of Ignatius and St. Paul). We might add 1 Pet. (ib. p. 194f.), but the dependence of Ignatius on Heb. and James is not evident.
According to von der Goltz, Ignatius did not know the Fourth Gospel, although his letters are full of Johannine thoughts, but merely participated in the Johannine Gedankenwelt, without actually reading the Gospel. It is more probable, however, that Ignatius used the Fourth Gospel, without quoting it. It is a very curious fact that in his Letter to the Ephesians Ignatius makes not the slightest allusion to the Apostle John. Ignatius certainly knew the Synoptic tradition, for there are clear traces of his dependence on Matthew, although we have no sign of dependence on Mark, and only one doubtful allusion to Luke.
Ignatius makes frequent appeal to what he calls , to the apostles, and to the prophets: taking refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus and in the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church. Yea, and we love the prophets also (Philad. v. 1f.). The prophets are the OT (Smyrn. v. 1); the Gospel gives us authentic knowledge of Jesus Christ (, Philad. viii. 2). In this connexion Ignatius writes: For I heard certain persons saying, If I find it not in the charters (), I believe it not in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written (), they answered me, That is the question () (no doubt a reference to the Docetists). The gospel is a written document about which there is much controversy. Further on Ignatius describes the contents of the gospel, i.e. the Incarnation or , the Passion and the Resurrection (9:2). The gospel is a fulfilment of OT prophecy (ib.). The Lord and the apostles are nearly always mentioned together: Do your diligence therefore that ye be confirmed in the ordinances () of the Lord and of the Apostles (Magn. xiii. 1), and Jlicher was right in saying that the words of Serapion (bishop of Antioch, c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 200), We receive Peter and all the other apostles as Christ ( Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)vi. xii. 3), might have been pronounced a century earlier (Einleitung in das NT5, 6, Tbingen, 1906, p. 430). Yet in the time of Ignatius the canon of the NT was not a purely ideal canon, as Jlicher thinks, and when Ignatius speaks of and he is thinking of authentic documents, which have been accepted by the Church. There is no doubt, however, that Ignatius accepts elements foreign to our ecclesiastical canon, as e.g. the words of the Risen Christ: I am not a demon without body ( , Smyrn. iii. 2), which may have originated in the , in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or in a gloss on Luk 24:39. Another foreign element is the description of the wonderful Nativity star (Eph. xix. 2), which is probably a gloss on Mat 2:2 and an echo of Num 24:17.
5. Ignatius theology, christology, and pneumatology.-The doctrine of Ignatius as shown in his vocabulary and ideas gives no hint of Hellenic culture. God is One; but the philosophic implications of this statement are not to be sought for. God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son and Word ( , , , , Magn. viii. 2). Jesus Christ pre-existed in God; He was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time ( , , , vi. 1). Christ is One: He came forth from One Father and is with One and departed unto One ( , vii. 2 [the last phrase is an allusion to the Ascension]). Christ was in God before time, invisible, impalpable, impassible, and it was for us He became visible and passible (Polyc. iii. 2). Christ is the Word coming forth from the silence of God, i.e. He is revealed to the world by the Incarnation (there is no reference to the part the Word had in the Creation); He comes forth from the Father to reveal Himself (no reference to the eternal generation of the Word-in fact, Christ is in God as He is , Eph. vii. 2). See J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, i. [Paris, 1905], p. 136.
Ignatius christology is presented as a refutation of Docetism, which regards Christ as a pneumatic being, and special stress is therefore laid on the real humanity and the bodily and passible being of Christ. Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary ( ), He is of the seed of David and of the Holy Ghost ( , ); He was born and was baptized (Eph. xviii. 2). He was really born of a virgin ( , Smyrn. i. 1). He was the son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died ; who moreover was truly raised from the dead (Trall, ix. 1, 2); truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (Smyrn. i. 2); He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and his company ( ) they touched him, and they believed (iii. 2).
Ignatius teaches the corporeity of Christ with such insistence because Christ is by nature (Harnack, Dogmengeschichte4, Tbingen, 1905, i. 213; W. Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern, Oxford, 1910, p. 10). Christ is of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life (i.e. God) in death (in a mortal body), son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible ( , , , , , , Eph. vii. 2; cf. Polyc. iii. 2). Ignatius thus posits in Christ the dualism of and : through the Christ is generate, born of Mary, passible and mortal; through the He is ingenerate (i.e. without beginning), He is life, He is impassible, He is God; in a word, Christ is God come in the flesh ( ).
The interpretation that Christ in the flesh became God has the context against it, for Christ did not become , nor : He realizes at one and the same time the two antinomial series of predicates. Through the which is , Christ is one with the Father: He is (Smyrn. iii. 3), and yet after the flesh He is subordinate to the Father ([] , Magn. xiii. 2) and has pleased God who sent Him ( , viii. 2). It is very difficult (in spite of Harnack [Dogmengesch.4 i. 216]) not to recognize in these statements of Ignatius all the presuppositions of the doctrine of the two natures; in any case, adoptianism is excluded.
The union of man and God in Christ is nowhere defined by Ignatius, but one passage may be taken to have this meaning: If, says Ignatius to the Ephesians (v. 1), I in a short time had such converse ( ) with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him () as the Church is with Christ Jesus and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity ( ). Here we have the union of Christ with the Father compared to the union of the Church with Christ, and the union of the believers with the bishop. The two terms and are not equivalent, the second being metaphorical, and only the first counting. But it would be rather risky, especially when dealing with Ignatius, to base a whole logical theory on a single word.
Christ is called , although He is distinct from the Father. Ignatius speaks, e.g., of the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God ( , Eph. inscr.). Even in His Incarnation Jesus is called : (Eph. xviii. 2; cf. Rom. inscr. and iii. 3). Von der Goltz is quite justified in saying that Ignatius distinguishes between Christ and the Father in so far as He is a person, pre-existent, historical, or exalted; all modalism is excluded, and only subordination remains possible. In the opinion of the present writer Ignatius regards Jesus Christ as God in His own person. Von der Goltz supposes that for Ignatius, Jesus Christ is God in relation to us, but Ignatius himself excludes relativism. In Eph. xv. 3 he writes: Nothing is hidden from the Lord, but even our secrets are nigh unto Him. Let us therefore do all things as knowing that He dwelleth in us, to the end that we may be His temples and He Himself may be in us as our God. This is so, ( ). Christ is our God not only in so far as He lives in us, but absolutely ( ). The expression does not give God a purely subjective value. Again, Jesus Christ is not only our God or God for us, He is very God: I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you ( , Smyrn. i. 1); cf. Trall. vii. 1 and Smyrn. x. 1, where the designation is given to Christ absolutely. We shall omit Smyrn. vi. 1, where a gloss has been inserted in the text.
The work of Christ consisted in giving man a knowledge of God. Jesus Christ is the of God, come forth from the silence of God (Magn. viii. 2). He is the mouth which lieth not, and in which the Father hath spoken truly ( , Rom. viii. 2). He is the knowledge of God: wherefore do we not all walk prudently, receiving the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ ( , , Eph. xvii. 2; cf. iii. 2). The teaching of Christ is a doctrine of incorruptibility ( , Magn. vi. 2). The incorruptibility is not the fruit of the but the fruit of the Death and Resurrection of Christ. The Cross, which is a stumbling-block to them that are unbelievers, is to us salvation and life eternal ( , Eph. xviii. 1). God became manifest in the flesh to prove the newness of imperishable life, and the destruction of death ( , xix. 3). The Passion of Christ and His blood shed for us are an earnest of this renewal of humanity; it is what Ignatius calls , , (xx. 1). Ignatius gives no explanation of this mystery-either of the virtue of Christs Passion or of the manner in which this virtue is communicated to the believing. But he lays great stress on the Passion of Christ and on the it procures-an insistence which is explained when we remember not only that he was refuting Docetism but also that this tenet of Pauline theology was for him one of fundamental importance.
That the Spirit stands in opposition to the flesh we have already gathered from many examples. This was a familiar article of faith to Ignatius: the flesh is man, the Spirit is a principle which comes from God and acts in man ( ) searching out his closest secrets (Philad. vii. 1). The prophets were the disciples of the Spirit (Magn. ix. 2). The Spirit inspires the spiritual man, and Ignatius is conscious of being so inspired: It was the preaching of the Spirit who spoke on this wise [by my mouth] ( , Philad. vii. 2). On this point Swete shrewdly observes: It is interesting to observe that Ignatius can combine a claim to prophetic inspiration with a passionate zeal for a regular and fully organized ministry (The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, London, 1912, p. 14).
The believers are the building of God the Father ( ), hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ ( ), which is the Cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit ( , Eph. ix. 1). Ignatius adjures the Magnesians to remain united in flesh and spirit ( ), by faith and love, in the Son, the Father, and the Spirit ( , Magn. xiii. 1). The Spirit is named along with the Logos ( , Smyrn. inscr.). The apostles were obedient (Magn. xiii. 2; it is difficult not to regard this as an example of the trinitarian baptismal formula [Harnack, Dogmengesch.4 i. 175]).
The Father is plenitude (, Eph. inscr.). The Son is the Logos of God (Magn. viii. 2), the thought of God ( , Eph. iii. 2), and the knowledge of God ( , xvii. 2). The Spirit is the of Christ ( , ib.), and in this sense the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philad. inscr.), although one cannot identify Christ and the Holy Spirit in any way, as Harnack would have us do (Dogmengesch.4 i. 214), basing his argument on Magn. xv., where is a synonym of and not of . The Word and the Spirit are not known except by their missions in time.
Christianity, in opposition to Judaism, is the life of Christ in us ( , Smyrn. iv. 1; cf. Eph. iii. 2, xi. 1, Magn. i. 2, ix. 2), which is manifested through faith and love (Eph. xiv. 1; cf. Smyrn. vi. 1, Philad. ix. 2). This life is the fruit of the Spirit; it is the Spirit in contrast with the flesh. The cannot do , neither can the do (Eph. viii. 2), and Ignatius even goes the length of saying, No man professing faith sinneth ( , Eph. xiv. 2).
As Christ is joined to the Father so the Church is joined to Christ (Eph 5:1), for Christ is in every believer (15:3). He breathes incorruption upon the Church (17:1). He is the High Priest to whom is committed the holy of holies; to Him alone the secrets of God are confided, He is the door of the Father through which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Church enter in (Philad. i. 9).
The time of the end is at hand (These are the last times, , Eph. xi. 1). All those who believe in Christ will rise again (Trall. ix. 2). The believers are members of Christ through His Cross and Passion, and the Head cannot exist apart from the members, so that in the end there will be unity, God Himself being Unity ( , , Trall. xi. 2). We find no trace of millennarianism and no apocalyptical imagery. The things of heaven ( ) are mentioned only in the abstract (Trall. v. 2), and with them the angelical orders ( , , , : terms which seem to foreshadow Gnosticism). Cf. Polyc. ii. 2: And as for the invisible things, pray thou that they may be revealed unto thee ( ).
This short analysis of the theologoumena of Ignatius will have shown the justice of F. Loofs verdict (Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte4, Halle, 1906, p. 102) that Johannine and Pauline thoughts ring through the theology of Ignatius; but it is not correct to say that his theology is a theology of Asia Minor distinct from ordinary Gentile Christianity (cf. Harnack, Dogmengesch4. i. 168). It is rather the theology of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus; his theology, as Harnack says (op. cit. i. 241) is of the same nature as that of Melito and Irenaeus, whose predecessor he is; it is the tutiorist theology of tradition which afterwards triumphantly withstood the Gnostic crisis; it was not brought into being by that crisis, but must certainly have existed prior to it although later than the monarchical episcopate. Ignatius has no creative genius, but, as Sanday aptly says, the striking thing about him is the way in which he seems to anticipate the spirit of the later theology; the way in which he singles out as central the points which it made central, and the just balance and proportion which he observes between them (Christologies, p. 10f.).
What has given authority to Ignatius letters is his martyrdom. His letters, written in an abrupt and nervous style, overloaded with metaphors, incoherent, popular, and lacking every Hellenic grace, are yet endowed with such pathetic faith and such passionate joy in martyrdom, with such overwhelming love of Christ, that they are one of the finest expressions of the Christianity of the 2nd century.
6. Special points raised by the Epistle to the Romans.-Some special questions raised by the Letter to the Romans, whose authenticity we assume as beyond question, have been reserved for separate treatment.
Ignatius says that he has been most eager to see the godly countenances of the Christians of Rome, and he hopes to salute them for wearing bonds in Christ Jesus (Rom. i. 1). He implores them to do nothing to save him from martyrdom; he dreads their very love; for it is easy for them to do what they will ( , , i. 2), i.e. the Romans were in a position to ensure Ignatius liberation. As Harnack says (Dogmengesch.4 i. 486; cf. Lightfoot, p. 196), Ignatius presupposes great influence on the part of the separate members of the community in the higher ruling circles. The insistence with which Ignatius endeavours to dissuade the Romans from any possible intervention on his behalf would seem to indicate that the Romans had some definite plan in hand and that he had been informed of it.
Again, in the Letter to the Romans (iii. 1) we find: Ye never grudged any one; ye were the instructors of others ( ). And my desire is that those lessons shall hold good which as teachers ye enjoin ( ). The word means to make disciples, as means to be a disciple (Eph. iii. 1). Thus the Romans gave instruction, made disciples, and laid down precepts. Ignatius is here probably thinking of such documents as 1 Clement, where the Church of Rome instructs other churches in their duty (so Duchesne, Eglises spares, Paris, 1896, p. 129; Harnack, loc. cit.; and Batiffol, Eglise naissante, Paris, 1909, p. 170), or he may have had in mind practical examples of martyrdom in the Church of Rome (in Eph. i. 2 he hopes to be able to follow the heroic example of these martyrs [ ; cf. Magn. ix. 2, Rom. iv. 2, v. 3]). The second interpretation perhaps suits the context better (cf. Lightfoot, ii. 202).
In Rom. iv. 3 Ignatius says: I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict. The word (condemnatus) is difficult to explain; but it may at any rate be taken as an expression of Ignatius humility such as is found in Trall. iii. 3: I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an apostle ( ). The apostles were, after Jesus Christ, the authorities of most account. I do not command you, as though I were somewhat ( ), writes Ignatius to the Ephesians (iii. 1; cf. 1Co 7:17). In the quotation from Rom. iv. 3 given above Ignatius mentions St. Peter and St. Paul because they alone of all the disciples had any dealings with the Romans: they had been at Rome and had given commandments to the Roman Church (Lightfoot, ii. 209). This allusion to St. Peter is generally taken as evidence of the fact that St. Peter went to Rome (cf. F. Sieffert, article Petrus in Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und Kirche 3 xv. [1904] 200; F. H. Chase, article Peter (Simon) in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iii. [1900] 769).
While Ignatius is still in Asia, Christians of Antioch go directly before him from Syria to Rome unto the glory of God. Ignatius is aware of this fact, and he writes to the Romans (x. 2): they are all worthy of God and of you, and it becometh you to refresh them in all things.
From this we may learn that there were great facilities for communication between Antioch or Ephesus (x. 1) and Rome. The Christians from Syria were most heartily welcomed at Rome, and from that time onwards the Church of Rome was known for its hospitality and generosity. In the address of the Letter to the Romans, the Church of Rome is saluted in most emphatic terms. If we compare this with the addresses of the other letters we shall find that this emphasis is part of Ignatius style (Polycarp, on the other hand, couches his address to the Philippians in the simplest terms); but, all the same, he salutes the Church of Rome with more emphasis than the other churches, which shows the great consideration shown at this time by other churches (esp. the Church of Antioch) to the Church of Rome. As Harnack says: However much one tones down the exaggerated expressions in his Letter to the Romans, so much is clear-that Ignatius assigns to the Roman community a position of real superiority over the sister-communities the effusiveness of the address shows that he values and salutes this community as the foremost in all Christendom (Harnack, loc. cit.).
Three of the predicates applied to the Roman Church by Ignatius in the address may now be considered.
(1) The believers are , filtered, pure, free from all polluting colouring matter (cf. Lightfoot, p. 193). As we have already noted, Ignatius does not think there are any heretics in Rome, and here he praises the Romans for not mixing any foreign colouring matter with the purity which befits them, as elsewhere he expresses a wish that among the Ephesians there may be no plant of the devil (Eph. x. 3). In the case of the Ephesians it is a mere wish, but with the Romans it is an accomplished fact.
(2) The Church of Rome . The verb is translated praesideo, sessio (in throno, in tribunali); =has the chief seat, presides, takes the precedence (Lightfoot, ii. 190). Ignatius applies this epithet elsewhere to the bishop and the presbytery ( , [Magn. vi. 1]; and again [ib. 2]). Ignatius thus attributes to the whole Roman Church a gravity comparable with that of the bishop and the presbytery. Zahn thinks that is a bad reading, and suggests : Ecclesia igitur Romana tamquam exemplar, ab omnibus imitandum, hominibus imperio Romano subditis praeest (Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae, p. 57). This correction has not been accepted by any other critic, and indeed, if Ignatius had wanted to say that, he would have written rather . Then again, is not to be taken with , as if Ignatius were saying that the Roman Church presided over the Roman region and the suburbicarian bishops (Lightfoot, ii. 190); but it is to be understood absolutely, and designates the place where the Church presides. The curious tautology must be equivalent to , and thus signifies the town of Rome. This interpretation of Funks seems more objective than Lightfoots (p. 190f.), who prefers to give the text a suburbicarian meaning.
(3) The Church of Rome is called , , , , , . This accumulation of epithets is an example of Ignatius emphasis; but the expression does have a more precise meaning. This time is not to be taken absolutely but construed along with : the Roman Church presides over love. Lightfoot (p. 192) takes the meaning to be: the Church of Rome, as it is first in rank, is first also in love, but it is doubtful if has this causative sense of or . The Latin version of the interpolated Letters of Ignatius translates the words fundatur in dilectione et lege Christi, but the verb has not this meaning in Ignatius. Harnacks interpretation procuratrix fraterni amoris is not exact either. The verb with the genitive implies presidency over a city or a region: , writes the Emperor Maximin Daia in a letter to the people of Tyre ( Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)IX. vii. 7). Funk (Patr. apost. i. 253) quotes from Theodoret the expression applied to Rome: ; and from John Malalas that applied to Antioch: . We may compare also Philostorgius representing Constantine (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] vii. 6 [ed. Bidez, 1913, p. 85]). Thus the word must be a metaphorical word for some collectivity, which cannot be the Church of Rome, because here the Church of Rome is the subject of which is the epithet. It would be very extraordinary if meant the Christian communities near Rome, or even the Christian communities of Italy, for that would be limiting arbitrarily the meaning of the word . We are left then with the explanation that is that in which the distant churches like Antioch and Ephesus are united to the Church of Rome. Ignatius writes to the Trallians (xiii. 1): ; and to the Romans (ix. 3): (cf. Philad. xi. 2 and Smyrn. xii. 1: ). Just as the collectivity of the believers of one church is designated by the expression , and two or three churches are designated by the phrase , so it is natural that should mean , president of the love or collectivity of the churches.
The Letter to the Romans presents one difficulty formulated by J. Wordsworth (Ministry of Grace, London, 1901, p. 126) in these words: Ignatius twice speaks of himself as Bishop of Syria or of the Church of Syria (chs. 2 and 9): but he is entirely silent as to any such office in the Church of Rome. If then, Clement, or any other single Church officer, had been Bishop of Rome, in the sense that Ignatius was Bishop of Syria, the language of the latter in writing to Rome would be almost inexplicable (cf. also J. Rville, Origines de lpiscopat, p. 510). If we take the trouble to read the Letter to the Romans carefully, we shall find still more extraordinary facts, viz. that Ignatius does not speak of presbyters or deacons either, so that if the objection of Wordsworth and Rville is valid, we should have to say that the Church of Rome, at the time of Ignatius Letter, had no hierarchy, no deacons, no presbytery, no bishop. As a matter of fact, Ignatius regarded each church as having its unity in its totality, and his letters are addressed to churches, to each church as such (exc. the Epistle to Polycarp), just as the Epistle of Clement does not bear the name of Clement, but is addressed by the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth. It is very probable that Clement was , although in his time the line of demarcation between episcopate and presbytery was still blurred. It is difficult to say when the monarchical episcopate strictly began in Rome, but the episcopal lists of Rome, Antioch, Corinth, etc., must have been nothing but forgeries if there was not early in the communities a primus inter pares, at the head of the presbytery, such as Clement was when he wrote to the Church of Corinth (Harnack, Entstehung und Entwickelung, p. 72). Thus the silence of Ignatius in his Letter to the Romans cannot be taken as a proof that Rome had no hierarchy at the time at which it was written. On Ignatius and the Roman primacy see A. Harnack, Das Zeugnis des Ignatius ber das Ansehen der rmischen Gemeinde, in SBAW [Note: BAW Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften.] , 1896, pp. 111-131; J. Chapman, in Revue Bndictine, 1896, pp. 385-400; Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen, i. [Paderborn, 1897], pp. 1-23.
Literature.-This has been cited throughout the article. For general bibliography see O. Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur, i, Freiburg i. B., 1902, pp. 119-145, and M. Rackl, Christologie des heiligen Ignatius, do. 1914, pp. xv-xxxii. The best modern critical editions are those of T. Zahn (Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae in Patr, apostol. opera, ii., Leipzig, 1876); F. X. Funk (in Opera patr. apostolicorum, Tbingen, 1878ff.); J. B. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers2, pt. ii. vol. ii., London, 1889). See also A. Lelong, Ignace dAntioche, Paris, 1910.
P. Batiffol.