to be left to be consumed by moths and worms; for these would not take away anything from their own glory if they emulated the example of the most serene prince. And this ardor of his shone forth all the more when, as it was reported to me, he appointed to his Laurentian library Giovanni Battista Doni, a noble man and a most worthy successor to Pietro Vettori, a man not only most learned himself, but endowed with such prudence that no one, in his judgment, was more suitable to be admitted to those sacred archives. After such a prince of so great an empire, to whom I am also most beholden, I should not remain silent about the benefits conferred by that most excellent man A Paganini Gaudentio, who by his own favor placed me in such a position with his prince that I might be allowed to enjoy this library as long as possible for my own benefit and the public's. But a more convenient time, I hope, will be given hereafter to speak of his merits toward me. For now, I have thought it sufficient to touch upon these things so that, even if I cannot pay the debts I owe, I may not appear unworthy of his benefits. Nor do I see why I should detain you any longer, reader. Other things also come to mind, and not foreign to my purpose; but a more convenient place will be given to those things on other occasions. Farewell, then, and expect more from me daily.
J. B. COTELERII JUDICIUM DE EPISTOLIS S. IGNATII
(Patres apostolici, ed. Amstelod. 1724, t. II, p. 9.)Were it not that the necessity of my office demanded that I should descend into the field to defend or attack the Ignatian Epistles, I would willingly abstain from the famous literary war which I know has been exhausted, then renewed, and for the conclusion of which I hear two mighty combatants are still arming themselves—one here in Gaul, the other in the British world—against a recent foe, a veteran soldier, pugnacious, contending with learned and eloquent words, and with curses, skilled to play the merchant with this war and to wage it, and who thought to use this stratagem: that because truly there were not abundant weapons available for the real Ignatius, he would involve a false one in the battle, so that by overcoming the unarmed, he might seem to have conquered the unconquered as well. But now the battle must be joined. I conclude the matter in a few words and one line of reasoning. The blessed Polycarp, his intimate, explicitly testifies that the holy Ignatius wrote epistles. And that the very ones we read—first edited from the Florentine codex by the most distinguished man Isaac Vossius—are the pure epistles of Ignatius is shown by the passages cited in the testimonies of the ancients: Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and others; for they are found in that edition. What is clearer? What is more certain?
Against these, and against our Ignatius, the objections of the adversaries are many, many objections, some general, others particular. We will encounter these item by item when we deem it necessary: let us weigh the principal ones. They can be distributed into two classes: for they are either sought from the silence of the ancients or from the style of the epistles. They say, therefore: How many among the first Fathers could and ought to have made mention of the Ignatian epistles, and yet did not do so before Eusebius? Since the testimonies of Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Origen are held to be suspect, or prove nothing. I retort in this manner: How many ecclesiastical works does Eusebius mention as the first, and often the only one, to do so (for those who transcribe Eusebius do not count) which others could B be expected to have mentioned, and indeed, by the same logic, ought to have done? Will they say that those are all supposititious? By no means, I think. What, then, are those which they oppose to the passages of Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Origen? See them there: Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Index of the Apocrypha of the New Testament, judges the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp to be apocryphal. Anastasius the Librarian has the same things in the Index which he prefixed to his Ecclesiastical History; and he, unless he had felt the same as Nicephorus about these epistles, would not seem to have let it go without some censure or animadversion. But the author of this list does not consign the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp to the apocrypha; he consigns "something of Ignatius and Polycarp." But why, instead, should we not explain that "something" as the *doctrine* of Ignatius and the *doctrine* of Polycarp, in pseudepigraphical books? For you have the *Didache of Ignatius* listed as apocryphal in that manuscript index which the most learned Ussher cites, appended to the *Questions* of Anastasius, regarding the epistles of Ignatius, ch. 1; and the *Teaching of Ignatius* along with the *Teaching of Polycarp* in an index appended to the same *Questions* in the volume of the Royal Library, 1789, which was placed by me above in my notes. But the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp themselves we nowhere see listed among the apocrypha. To omit the *Liturgy of Ignatius*, concerning which Ussher writes in the same place, and something of the same martyr concerning matters of faith and the canons in the catalogue of Ebedjesu, no. 18; for it seems to be different from his Chaldaic or Syriac epistles, mentioned by Ussher in ch. 4. And indeed (the occasion offering itself, I will note this), he who considers that in the ninth century of the Christian era the Greek and Roman Churches did not doubt the many books of Sacred Scripture which are called into doubt in that list will easily understand with me that the cited index or canon of the Scriptures in no way pertains to the times of Nicephorus of Constantinople and Anastasius the Librarian. Wherefore, let the canon of Patriarch Nicephorus be either rejected, or be said to be from another...
A more collected than composed; and let it be thought only translated by Anastasius, not also credited to him. And hence vanishes into the air whatever, with great pomp of words, is so often cast in our teeth by a learned man on account of Nicephorus and Anastasius. So that there is no need to answer what may nevertheless be said not improbably: either that Polycarp was proscribed along with Ignatius, because of the gathering of the Polycarpian epistle and the Ignatian epistles, as well those interpolated as those falsely attributed, or that the epistle of Polycarp and the epistles of Ignatius were called apocryphal, because, although innocent, and not pseudepigraphical, they were read outside the canon of all the churches. For what, I ask, is harmful, what unworthy of an apostolic man, does that Polycarpian [epistle] contain? They proceed against the epistle of Polycarp, and assert that it speaks inconsistently concerning Ignatius while living and Ignatius when dead: namely, the former through these words in chapter 13: "And concerning Ignatius himself, and those who are with him, make known what you have more certainly learned." The latter through those things which are held in chapter 9, concerning Ignatius and the other martyrs, and also the apostles, that all, after their agonies, are in the place due to them with God. A wonderful disagreement, to be sure, if it rested on truth: but it is utterly devoid of it. For let it be assumed, as we feel, that Polycarp wrote at that time when Ignatius was believed to have undergone martyrdom, yet uncertain rumors (as usually happens) were being brought of those things which had occurred at his death. This being posited, was it not fitting that Polycarp should say that Ignatius holds his place with God, and at the same time ask to be informed B περὶ Ἰγνατίου καὶ περὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτόν (concerning Ignatius and those concerning him), if the Philippians had received anything certain? There is no doubt, unless I am mistaken.
From Polycarp to Irenæus: "As one of ours said, having been judged to the beasts on account of his martyrdom to God: since I am the wheat of Christ," etc. They explain that he said—that is, he spoke—and did not write. But I, since the word "said" applies equally to speech as to writing, and since it is certain from the Acts and Life of Ignatius, and from Jerome and Ado, that those words were uttered by the most stouthearted martyr during his very contest, why should I understand it as an epistle rather than a voice in Irenæus? The reason is the authority of Eusebius, who so accepted it, and also because Irenæus did not write θηριομαχῶν (fighting with beasts), or anything similar, but κατὰ κρίσιν πρὸς θηρία (by judgment to the beasts), condemned to the beasts. Origenes in the prologue of his Commentaries on the Song of Songs: "Finally, I remember that one of the saints said, naming Ignatius, concerning Christ: 'My love has been crucified.'"
A Dionysius, *De divinis nominibus*, c. 4, n. 12: Γράφει δὲ καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἰγνάτιος· Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται (And the divine Ignatius writes: My love has been crucified). It is for Origen to say what Dionysius writes. But, they say, those commentaries are not Origen's. It had slipped from their memory that they were cited at the end of the *Philocalia*. But you, that I may not waste time on a matter already dispatched, look at what have been solidly disputed regarding this controversy by the most learned and illustrious man Peter Daniel Huet, in his *Origeniana*, lib. III, p. 248. Read likewise what, in the same book, p. 252, 253, are brought forward for the *Homilies on Luke* of the same Adamantius, which, because they are also inconvenient for them by the open citation of the Ignatian Epistle, they endeavor to reject, and that by trivial arguments, easy to refute for those who have paid attention in part to the translator Jerome, in part to Origen at that time a young man. See also us below in c. 19, *Ep. ad Ephes.*, concerning Basil and Jerome reading these homilies.
So much for the pretended silence of the ancients. Now let us come to the style of the epistles. The Ignatian diction appears to authors of a different opinion from ours to be, in a wondrous and prodigious manner, new, poetic, turgid, rotting, frigid, obscure, full of affectation and tautology, altogether absurd and feigned, and in no way apostolic. Others, who detect in it very many most certain traces of antiquity and apostolic simplicity, and nothing really thoughtless, nothing feigned, or not apostolic, feel far differently. Let us concede, however, that the diction of Ignatius has something of novelty, of bombast, of obscurity. What then? Everyone has his own style, his own manner of writing. If room is given to trifles of this sort of argumentation, would not most of the undoubted monuments of antiquity be easily torn apart? A few feel nausea at some Ignatian passages, but the stomach of others is stronger. Indeed, the most holy martyr deserved pardon, that, writing among leopard-soldiers, and breathing the one crown of martyrdom, he could not polish and vary his epistles. And these things may suffice for the present, briefly stated for the sake of notes, until the expected dissertations of learned men on behalf of Ignatius are produced. I think there will be few who would prefer the censure of those three critics, though of great name and merit—Salmasius, Blondell, Dallaeus—to the judgment of Eusebius, B Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and of all antiquity, as well as of all the Catholics of this time, and of many heterodox writers. But I shall speak of the number of the epistles in that [part] to Polycarp; but concerning the interpolated and spurious epistles, it shall be discussed in its own place.
JOHN PEARSON'S IGNATIAN VINDICATION.
(Cotelerius, *Patres apost.* II, 252, ed. Amstelod. 1724.)
TO THE MOST REVEREND LORD D. GILBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND.
When Anastasius of Antioch had written to Gregory the Great and had appended a clause from the epistle of St. Ignatius, Gregory himself also included the same in his own, and rendered this reason, that he is not only yours, but ours also. Thus the patriarchs of the West and of the East contended among themselves for that most holy prelate and martyr. Other are the customs of this century, other the disputes: both the learned and the unlearned, both at home and abroad, tear apart the most precious relics of that martyr. To your archiepiscopal see, therefore, the archbishop himself flees, and seeks this one thing, that he not be held as an impostor. You, to whom among us, under the greatest king, the highest care and power in the business of religion have been entrusted by the singular providence of God, most deservedly—you who protect our Church against the ulcerated spirits of men and the enmities born of the vice of most sorrowful times by the authority of an incredible prudence—you will never allow so clear a monument of pristine simplicity, both in Catholic doctrine and in ecclesiastical discipline, to be ventilated by the wits of the evil-minded; you will never allow the epistles, written in bonds between the hands of ferocious soldiers and the straits of prisons with most present spirit, to be rejected as unlovely; nor will you allow them to be extirpated—they who are the most certain remedy against heresies that first arose and now at last are sprouting again, and against schisms; nor will you allow the face of the primitive Church, here shown most clearly, to be defiled and obliterated. Why should I mention the most happy efforts of the most learned Primate of Armagh? Why the edition of the original Greek codex, most opportunely procured by the most learned Vossius, in conspiracy with these? Why the lucubrations of Hammond, an excellent man and most consummate theologian? For I do not doubt that you, long before, approved the labors of all these, undertaken for the greatest benefit of the Church, and established them by the great weight of your most sharp judgment and prudence. But since all these have been called to an examination too severe, the author of this work, such as it is, humbly petitions your Paternity—devotedly yours, John Pearson—that you would not disdain to receive it, if not to approve it with the same judgment, yet with that candor with which you are accustomed to receive others.
TO THE READER.
Whatever things contribute to the understanding of the controversy treated in this work are already so perspicuously and copiously set forth in the Proemium that it seems entirely superfluous to use another preface. There is one thing, however, of which I have thought it necessary to warn you, benevolent Reader, above all else. Our people have hitherto thought that the epistles of St. Ignatius have furnished a most luminous testimony to the antiquity of the episcopate. I do not know, however, by what means it has come about that some have thought a sufficiently firm argument for the novelty of the episcopal order could be drawn from this one writer, and that he was entirely pure, and have used it in theological schools. For behold, among the theses disputed in the academy of Saumur under the presidency of Louis Cappel concerning the distinction between bishop and presbyter, a new argument is fashioned in this manner: "The author of the Epistle to the Magnesians calls the *presbyterion*, that is, the college of the presbyters, and the administration and rule of the Church by it, the Christ-law, A because it was instituted by the will of Christ through the apostles; but he calls the *neoterike taxis*—that is, the novel institution—that which in his own time set the bishop over the presbyters." It is certain, however, that he wrote after the time of the heretic Valentinus, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus, around the year 144 from the birth of Christ. Thus it becomes manifest that the new constitution concerning the prerogative and authority of the bishop over the presbyters was made after the one hundred and fiftieth year from the resurrection of Christ and the mission of the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Dallaeus passed over this argument, either because he thought it had no force in it, or because he did not prove the writer of the epistles to be an impostor, but supposed him to be; or because it did not at all suit his hypothesis, for he thought his impostor lived either at the end of the third or at the beginning of the fourth century; at which time no one who had not gone insane would have called the episcopate a "novel institution." We have thought that this, passed over by him, should be discussed here, B lest anyone afterwards attach so inept a meaning to Ignatius, or from him derive such a false...
dogma, one pernicious to the Church. A
For if it were conceded that the author of the Epistle to the Magnesians was an impostor, and that he called the episcopate a "novel institution," it would in no way be manifest that the constitution concerning the authority of the bishop was made after the year 150 from Christ’s resurrection. For first, if he were an impostor, it would not be necessary for him to speak of his own time; for he would have to be said to have assumed the task of feigning himself to be a man of old, an apostolic man, a bishop ordained by the apostles, and crowned with martyrdom shortly after the passing of the Apostle St. John. But if he were playing the impostor well, he ought to have referred everything to that age; and that he did not refer these very things to that century can in no way be proven. Nothing else, therefore, follows from that double concession other than that, in the opinion of the impostor, the episcopate, as it is superior to the presbyterate, was at that time a novel institution when Saint Ignatius was being led to martyrdom through Asia. Moreover, this happened within 75 years after the resurrection of Christ, within 8 years after the death of the Apostle St. John; so that the episcopate could be called a novel institution, and yet be apostolic. Salmasius wishes his impostor to have lived under Antoninus or Aurelius, whence, according to his custom, he concludes: "It is evident that in that century that B *neoterikēn taxin* (novel order) of the bishop above the presbyters was introduced, as shines forth more clearly than the sun from this epistle." But if that impostor lived under this or that emperor, it is not evident that *neoterikēn taxin* was introduced at that time; for it could have happened that Ignatius’s imitator was looking back to the age in which Ignatius lived, and in which Damas was still a young bishop of the Magnesians, as everyone sees; whence it follows that that novel institution could have been introduced in the first century. And in truth, to refer the constitution of episcopal authority to the year 150 after Christ's resurrection, that is to say, to the year 183 of the vulgar era, is alien to all reason, based on the age of the impostor, since those who wish him to be an impostor have never been able to agree on his age. Albertinus sensed that the Epistle to the Magnesians was written around the middle of the second century; Salmasius perhaps a little later. But if it was a novel institution at that time, it was nonetheless an institution, and one made indeed before that time; how then could it be said that C this constitution was made after the year 182? Blondellus determined that Ignatius wrote his *pseudepigrapha* after the death of Clement of Alexandria, that is, after the beginning of the third century; Dallæus, either around the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth; Bochartus, under the reign of Constantine; but no sane person would say that at that age the episcopate was a novel institution.
But neither is to be conceded: not the first, because the author of the Epistle to the Magnesians, as well as of the other six, was not an impostor, but the true Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, as has been proven throughout this whole work; not the second, because that writer, whoever he was, never called the episcopate a novel institution. For that word *neoterikē* does not denote the novelty of the episcopate, but the youth of the bishop. Blondellus noted the words of Ignatius, but did not translate them into Latin: Salmasius, first of all, rendered *neoterikēn taxin* as "novel institution" or "new order," contrary to Ignatius's way of speaking, contrary to the manifest sense of the whole context, and contrary to the author's mind, which is explained sufficiently elsewhere. To confirm this translation, he miserably distorted the passage of Ignatius; and since he knew that our author had followed the manner of speech of St. Paul most of all, he interpreted him also wrongly and by force. In the Epistle of St. Paul, he says, to Timothy D II, ch. II, 22, *neoterikai epithumiai* are not "juvenile cupidities," but "new," or "of new things," as we shall explain elsewhere. Therefore, that this argument may be totally exploded, first, benevolent reader, the passage of St. Paul, which there is no unjust suspicion is our author's here as elsewhere, will be explained; second, the words of Ignatius will be set forth nakedly and openly, and will be vindicated from the annoying glosses of the adversaries.
Everyone knows that *neos* signifies now "a youth," now "new." The Old Glossary: *neos anthrōpos*, *juvenis*; *neos oikos*, *hē heteron ti*, *novus*, *novellus*; from *neos*, *neōteros* likewise either *junior* or *recentior*; or also *juvenis*. Hesychius, *neōteron*, *ou monon sygkritikōs, alla kai neon Attikoi*. The Old Glossary: *junior, neōteros, juvenis, neōteros*. And in the Excerpts: *juvenis, neōteros*; *ho neōteros*, the possessive word *neōterikos, juvenilis*. The Greco-Latin Glossary: *neōterikos, neōterikōs, juvenilis*: Latin-to-Greek, *juvenilis, neōterikos*; *juvenile, neōterikon*. *Neōterikos*, therefore, from *neōteros*, is *juvenilis*, not "desirous of new things," which is called in Greek *neōteristikos*, from the verb *neōterizein*. Whence among the vicious and blameworthy epithets of an orator or a demagogue these are enumerated by Julius Pollux: *paratrepōn*, *neōterizōn*, *neōteristēs*, *neōteristikos*. In that place, therefore, where the Apostle gives this command to Timothy: *Tas de neōterikas epithumias pheuge*, we shall prove by all right methods of interpretation that *neōterikas epithumias* ought to be rendered not as "new" but as "juvenile cupidities." For first, whether you look at the thing itself that is forbidden, or at the person to whom the commandment is given, this interpretation is especially appropriate for both. For in reality *epithumiai*, whether cupidities, or libidos, or desires, or appetites or appetencies, are attributed especially to the youth. Aristotle, *Rhetorica* lib. II, cap. 11: "The young are therefore irascible, and, in regard to desires, *epithumētikoi* (desirous)." And again: "They are changeable and easily tired in their desires." The same, *Topica* lib. III, c. 2: "For the young are more troubled by desires than the elders." Hence Varro in *Tithonus* apud Nonium: "Where juvenile multicupidity has left off." St. Basil: "Youth is light and easily moved toward base things, [its] desires are hard to restrain." Which Philo Judæus called *hormas duskathektous* (motions hard to restrain). St. Chrysostom, "The young man is more prone to anger and to desires." Who, therefore, when he sees *epithumias* (desires) forbidden, and notices the word *neōterikas* joined to them, will not immediately judge them to be juvenile? For *neōterikē* is...
a possessive word, as grammarians say, both in form and meaning. “Those things are possessive in type and meaning, which are resolved into the genitive of the primitive,” says the etymologist. From *neōterikos* it is resolved into the genitive of that word from which it derived its origin, so that it is the same as *neōterikās*, that is, *neōterōn epithumias* (desires of the younger). A Now the person to whom this command was given was a youth. For 1 Tim. iv, 12: *Mēdeis sou tēs neotētos kataphroneitō*. Let no one despise your youth, or, as an older translation in Ambrosiaster has it, *juventutem* (your young age). The second Epistle was written in the year immediately following the first: Timothy therefore was still a youth. The Apostle therefore warns the youth to flee the *epithumias*, and indicates that they are *neōterikas*; he doubtless intended "juvenile" desires. Secondly, that this is the meaning of these words is evident from all the ancient translations. The ancient Latin interpreter says, *Juvenilia autem desideria fuge* (But flee juvenile desires), and other older Latins do the same. How the Syriac Apostles understood this—among whom St. Ignatius moved—is understood no better than from the ancient Syriac version, which rendered those words thus: *ab omnibus cupiditatibus adolescentiæ fuge* (flee from all desires of youth). For they are *raggē* appetites, or *epithumiai tēs neotētos* (desires of youth), as in Matth. xix, 20: *tauta panta ephulaxamēn ek neotētōs mou* (all these I have kept from my youth), and 1 Tim. iv, 12: *mēdeis sou tēs neotētos kataphroneitō*. Thus in both places, looking to the youth of Timothy, he used this same word. The Arabic and Ethiopian versions are no different. Thirdly, all the ancients, B both Greeks and Latins, have interpreted this passage in the same way. Ambrosiaster, who wrote under Damasus: "Flee juvenile desires." Juvenile desires are adverse: for they are worldly pleasures, which are enslaved to all kinds of allurements, and for this reason they must be fled by the servant of God. "But seek justice, faith, charity, peace." These things he commands to be sought, which seem devious and harsh to the youthful age. St. Chrysostom on the passage: *Neōterikai ouch autai eisin hai tēs porneias monon, alla pasa epithumia atopos neōterikē; akouetōsan hoi gegērakotes hoti ou dei ta tōn neōterōn poiein*. "Juvenile desires are not those of fornication only, but every absurd desire is juvenile; let the aged hear that they must not do the things of the young." This interpretation is followed by Theophylact and OEcumenius. Pelagius, as it seems, says in the Commentary published under the name of Jerome: "But flee juvenile desires. Because these cannot be among the elders, if they do those things which do not befit Christian gravity; and they are overcome by the youth, if they possess lightness." Blessed Theodoret in the Commentary: *Tas de neōterikas epithumias, toutesti, truphēn, gelōtos ametrian, doxan kenēn, kai ta toutois prosomoia*. "That is, luxuries, immoderate laughter, vain glory, and things similar to these; which indeed are not 'new' or desires for 'new things,' but the companions of the youthful age." Primasius: "But flee juvenile desires." C Juvenile desires and even in the elderly may exist, if they do those things which do not befit Christian gravity: and [they] can be overcome by the youths, if they lack lightness. Sedulius: "Flee juvenile desires, that is, fornication; which no one would say is a 'new' thing." Fourthly, ancient writers of the Church, according to this Pauline sense, used the word *neōterikos*, as Eusebius, in the book *On the Martyrs of Palestine*, chap. 4, where he describes the most valiant martyr Apphianus, who had not yet reached twenty years of age, and who had lived in Berytus: *Paradoxon kai eipein hōs en toiautē polei tōn neōterikōn epithumiōn huperanō genomenos, kai mēth' hup' akmēs tou sōmatos, mēth' hupo tēs tōn neōn etaireias diaphtheireis ton tropon, sōphrosunēn hēspazeto*. "It is incredible to say, in what way in such a city he was superior to the desires of youth, and neither by the vigor of the body, nor by the association of the young were his manners corrupted, but he embraced modesty." St. Chrysostom regarding himself, while still a youth, in the first oration *De Sacerdotio*: *Epeidan de edei ton makarion ton tōn monachōn metadiōkein bion, kai tēn philosophian tēn alēthē, kai ouk eti hēmin ho zugos houtos isos ēn, all' hē men autou plastinx ekouphizeto meteōros, egō d' eti tais tou kosmou pepedēmenos epithumiais katheilkon tēn emautou psuchēn, kai ediazomēn katō menein neōterikais autēn epibrithōn phantasiais*. "But when it was necessary for the blessed man to pursue the life of monks and true philosophy, and this yoke was no longer equal for us, but his scale was lifted up, while I, still fettered by the desires of the world, pulled down my own soul, and was forced to remain below, weighing it down with juvenile fantasies." For here he similarly used *neōterikas phantasias*, just as in the exposition of the passage to Timothy: *phantasias neōterikas pheuge*. The author of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. ii, c. 1, out of the *Didascalia*, as it seems, regarding that which was attributed to Ignatius, teaches that an bishop must not be younger than fifty years of age, D *hoti tropō tini tas neōterikas ataxias kai tas exōthen diabolas ekpepheugōs huparchei*. That he may have already in some way fled the juvenile petulances, and the mockery of those who are outsiders; unless perhaps someone is worthy of the episcopate, *dia tēs neotētos en praotēti kai eutaxia gēras epideiknumenos*, showing old age in youth by living meekly and composedly. In many ways, I think, the explanation of the word *neōterikos*, which is found but once in Scripture, cannot be bolstered: since, if you consider the very thing that is forbidden, if you consider the person to whom the commandment is given, if you look at the interpreters, if the commentators, if you look at the common use of the word among the ancients, all agree and conspire in this one exposition. But if this acceptance of this word is to be received by the Apostle at all, it is more than likely that in our Ignatius—who both in deeds and words our people confess and adversaries complain was above all an imitator of St. Paul—the same word must be accepted in the same sense.
A ecclesiastical order is taken, though it is not infrequently referred to other things, and indeed to those which are opposed to the sacred orders. St. Chrysostom, in his homily *Against the Jews*: "This Abraham, the progenitor of the Levites and of the Jewish priests, under Melchisedech, who was a type of our priesthood, held the order or position of a layman." He elsewhere distinguishes the dignity of priests, and him who is subjected and is in the order of laymen. In like manner he speaks of the order of a private person, and of stewards and of agents and of certain market-men being exchanged. In as many ways as men can be divided and distributed, and into as many classes as they can be grouped, all are referred by the Greeks to *taxis*. Thus we read of the order of a king, the order of fathers, the order of teachers, the order of hostages, the order of the captive, the order of the poor, the order of the lawgiver, or of one counseling, the order of a handmaid, and the like. But in any city, young men, grown men, and old men are always distinct: and these are everywhere divided according to the age of men. The apostles divide the Christian people in every Church into two classes: the young—that is to say, the younger—and the elders, as in 1 Tim. v, 1: "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters." And for Titus ii, 6: "Younger men likewise to be sober-minded." But *taxis* here means the same as the order of the young or younger, or of youth. As Plato assigned in his *Republic* those who are farmers or guards, and others, into tasks; and Proclus in his *Timaeus* calls them the farming task, which is rightly called the farming or guarding one. Ignatius intended nothing other than this, and the paraphrast expressed *neoteriken taxin* quite well by *neoteta*.
Now, those who here maintain that it is not the age of the bishop that is meant, but the novelty of the episcopal order, bring in a matter that is entirely alien to the mind of the author; and to do so, they strangely twist the whole context. For neither Ignatius himself, nor any sane person in his position, would have discoursed on the novelty of the episcopate, in which he himself had already grown old. How could he say that the episcopate was a novel institution, and that it was introduced, as they wish, so many years after the death of all the apostles, when he always attributes the institution of the episcopal order to God and Christ as its author? In this very place he praises Sotion because he is subject to the bishop, *os chariti Theou*, as if by the grace of God. In the Epistle to the Ephesians: *hoi episkopoi hoi kata perata horisthentes en Iesou Christou gnome eisin*. The old interpreter says: "They, or the bishops, are according to the limits of the earth the judgment of Jesus Christ." He describes the bishop: *hon pempei oikodespotes eis idian oikonomian*, "whom the master of the house sends to his own stewardship," who is Christ. Epistle to
A the Trallians: "Farewell in Jesus Christ, being subject to the bishop, as to the commandment." If the author of the Epistles had truly wished to note the novelty of the episcopal order, why did he not do so elsewhere? If this were a new institution, that objection would have held as much in the cases of Polybius, Onesimus, and Polycarp as it did in that of Damas; and he would have acted much more prudently had he attempted to remove it at that time, when the greater age of the bishop, his gravity, and the proved prudence of the man would have lent some authority to a novel order. Let no one deem Ignatius so imprudent, no one deem him so foolish an impostor, as to attempt to persuade the people of the bishop’s youth and the presbyters simultaneously of the novelty of the episcopal order. Thus, mention of a novel institution is entirely alien to the nature of this passage and to the author's purpose.
This will appear still more clearly if we observe the devices by which they undermine the author's meaning, the machinations by which they disturb everything, as they attempt to squeeze out from this passage this novel institution heretofore unheard of. First, Salmasius observes that his impostor, our Ignatius, had said that the presbyterium is the "law of Christ," because it was introduced by the institution and will of Christ; but that he praised Sotion because he was subject to the bishop, as *chariti Theou*, "by the grace of God," in order to show that this new institution of placing the bishop over the presbyters was also pleasing to God. But who has ever shown from that, that the episcopate was first super-imposed upon the presbyters by the grace of God, because the presbyterium is prescribed by the law of God, while the episcopate is superior to it, having been introduced by the will of men, and indeed long after the death of all the apostles? Or who would gather from the fact that something is said to be done by the grace of God, that the same did not also proceed from the divine will and institution of primordial times? I appeal to Salmasius himself, whose words are these: "As if those things which flowed from the institution of Christ did not also carry with them the grace of God." That was without a doubt the intent of the writer, who teaches that the episcopal order, insofar as it is super-imposed upon the presbyterium, is called now *charin Theou* [the grace of God], now *gnomen Christou* [the mind of Christ], now *ten entolen* [the commandment], and thus that it was instituted by the grace of God, according to the mind of Christ, and by divine mandate. This distinction, therefore, between the grace of God and the evangelical law is thought up in vain.
Secondly, he does even more manifest violence to the passage, which can in no way be tolerated, while he proposes a double petition from these words, so as to teach that the writer is dealing with two matters, namely, the youth of the bishop and the novelty of the episcopate. He directs one petition to the plebs, another to the presbyters. He petitions, he says, the plebs, that they should not act too familiarly with the bishop, because he appears to be younger; he petitions the presbyters, that without prejudice to the approval and reception of this new institution, they should defer honor to him. Thus he proposes the Epistle as petitory on a double count, when there is not even one petition here, let alone two. Ignatius does not petition anything from the people, but teaches them what is fitting for them; *hymin de prepei*, he says, *me synchresthai te helikia tou episkopou*, that it is unbecoming B to treat the bishop’s age as a thing of no consequence.
He shows that they treat him familiarly as their bishop, however young he may be; he attributes such dignity to his office that it must not be held in contempt on account of his person. He petitions nothing at all from the presbyters: he does not even teach what their duty in this matter might be, because he knew that they were sufficiently ready and eager to perform this. Therefore, he proposes their example to the plebs, judging it most fair that the people should be subject to him with all reverence, to whom the presbyters yielded without any excuse. He professes that this was known to him, who at the time when he was writing, had with him not only Damas the bishop with his deacon Sotion, but also Bassus and Apollonius, the presbyters; from whom he knew well what reverence the presbyters showed to their bishop. Hence, throughout the Epistle, he never warns the presbyters that they should be subject to their bishop, but only the people, that they should be subject to both the bishop and the presbyters, as they are deemed to be in excellent agreement. Therefore, he petitions nothing from the presbyters: there is not even the smallest word which might bear the appearance of such a petition or exhortation. He who wished to bring a new thing into the opinion, invented a new petition, without which that could in no way be introduced. But Ignatius pursues a single exhortation to the people, which he presses and urges by the example of the presbyters, *kathos*, he says, *egno*, "as I have known the presbyters to be minded, so also may you be minded." Therefore, Ignatius does not approach the people with any artifice, much less does he approach the people with one artifice and the presbyters with another, as Salmasius wishes, whom he knows from their own manner of life to be sufficiently inclined of their own accord to show reverence to the bishop.
So miserably did Salmasius twist this passage, that he might draw it to his own opinion. And no wonder! For that whole edifice which he himself, along with Blondell, had built concerning the succession of the next presbyter in the place or primacy of the one departing, is undermined and utterly overturned by this one piece of evidence. For where is that succession of the first presbyter according to the institution into the place of the deceased, where Damas, being junior in age, is set over the whole presbyterium? Whence does the exercise of such a privilege appear, when the presbyters themselves consented to this matter so readily?
C I wonder, however, at Dionysius Petavius, who, although he was so opposed to Salmasius, nevertheless followed him in this interpretation of the two words, and escaped to a new conjecture from there. *Neoterike taxis*, he says, is a new and recent ordination and institution. But by it he did not understand the institution of the episcopal order with Salmasius, but another which he himself dreamt up; namely, that which had then begun to be moved and agitated, with some people attempting to introduce it through ambition and desire; namely, that the episcopate might be taken not by the free election of those whom it concerned, but by seniority of age or time in which they were assumed into the clergy, so that not the most worthy one was chosen, but the most ancient. Thus two great men are diametrically opposed. The one thinks this to be an ancient institution, the other a novel one; the one thinks it derived from apostolic times, the other not…
… A a state of ambition had been introduced, which they [the Magnesians] rejected, while certain others elsewhere were attempting to introduce it. But neither party proves that such an institution had ever prevailed, or that it was at that time repudiated. We grant that Timothy was over the Ephesian Church and Damas over the Magnesian as a younger presiding officer; but who these were, who fought through ambition and faction—so that the rationale of antiquity might be chiefly maintained—we do not yet understand. For that Petavius believes this contention to have been of the same kind as that which elicited the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is said without any foundation. For if one or another of them grieved that they had been passed over, they could have fought as much for merit as for age, whether they were younger or older. However, whoever they may have been, he [Petavius] himself admits that they contended not about the episcopate, but over the presbyterate, and he says that his conjecture is merely more probable than the Salmasian one, yet he offers nothing to establish its truth. But I see whence the most learned man fell into such uncertainty and such an improbable conjecture. He wrongly grasped those Ignatian words, *ou proseilēphotas*. "He asserts," he says, "that they rejected and did not admit the presbyters, whatever he may at length call the *neōterikēn taxin* (novel order)." Since, therefore, the Magnesians did not reject either youth or the episcopal order, as is evident from the passage itself, Petavius thought something else must be devised which was rejected by them, and which could be called *neōterikē taxis*. And indeed, all who render *neōterikē taxis* as "novel institution" are stuck in explaining that word, *proseilēphotas*. C Salmasius renders the phrase: *Kathōs egnōn kai tous hagious presbyterous, ou proseilēphotas tēn phainomenēn neōterikēn taxin, all’ hōs phronimous en Theō synchōrountas autō*—"As I recognized the holy presbyters, not as accepting the institution which appears new, but as prudent men in God, yielding to him." Here, first, he omits the particle *kai*, because it is hostile to his explanation, as it shows that the writer is speaking of the same matter when he proposes the example of the presbyters as he had warned the people about—namely, the age of the bishop; for otherwise *kathōs kai* cannot be explained. Secondly, he added the little word "as" of his own accord; for he saw that "accepting" could not have a place here. The author of the Capellian thesis tempered his version differently: "How do I deem the holy presbyters; if they do not receive this novel institution that is now current, they at least, as prudent men in God, should yield to the bishop," so that when he has confused everything, he says nothing. Petavius cautiously abstained from a version, content with this observation: that the presbyters rejected the *neōterikēn taxin*. This is truly a wondrous interpretation by one who professes that Ignatius proposes the presbyters to the people as ones to be imitated in those same words. But these men did not see what *proseilēphotas* denotes here. Patricius Junius reads *ou proseilēphotas*—"not viewing with a prejudiced mind"—which is not bad; but there was no need to omit the letter. Suidas says: *Proseilēphesan*, "they took up, they understood." *Proseilēphotas* here means nothing other than "understanding" or B sounding. I therefore translate *ou proseilēphotas* as "not grasping, not considering, not regarding." As the Paraphrast [puts it]: *ou pros tēn phainomenēn aphōrōntas neotēta*—"not looking toward the apparent youth." For he does not here most miserably pervert the Ignatian [text], as Salmasius maintains, but explains it faithfully and clearly. Wherefore, since these [words] only regard the age of Damas, the bishop of the Magnesians, since the author of the Epistles means everywhere that the episcopate was instituted by Christ, since he constantly warns all Christians, even presbyters, whom he teaches to have been instituted by God, to obey the bishop, and shows that all who resist him who is placed over them are oppressed by an evil conscience and serve the devil; it is plain that this passage cannot be understood as referring to a novel institution of the episcopate. Or if there be anyone who still doubts whether all these things should be referred to the age of Damas; he must necessarily interpret *neōterikēn taxin* as "of recent [time]," regarding not the episcopate or office, but the ordination of the man or bishop; unless he wishes to contradict the writer's design openly. For I admit that the word *neōterikēn* can be used of some recent or modern matter, and indeed quite congruously with its origin. As Epiphanius [says] regarding Hierax, in heresy 67: *psalmous pollous neōterikous eplēsato*—"he composed many recent or brand-new psalms." And whoever has understood the writer in this way, regarding the ordination of Damas having been recently performed, will not violate the Ignatian doctrine which is copiously explained elsewhere; but how fitting a sense he can attribute to this place with that interpretation, he himself must see. For that word *phainomenēn*, beyond other things adduced above, seems to me to demand that *neōterikē taxis* be referred to age. For it denotes without doubt something that was apparent from the appearance of Damas; so as to show that he was a youth in face, but a man in character. To which also those words, *ton episkopon touton ton blepomenon*, which immediately follow in the same passage, refer. D While these things were being written, the work now finished, kind Reader, there came into my hands the *Works of the Holy Fathers who flourished in the apostolic times*, edited by Jean-Baptiste Cotelier, a most learned theologian of the Sorbonne. Having inspected this book, I could not but rejoice seriously in these times, that even in the Gallican Church, having utilized its liberties in the best way, theologians of every order, most learned, not only vigorously contend for the true monuments of the ancient Church, but also judge without any bias of parties regarding the spurious and supposititious books which have hitherto imposed upon the world and soothed the minds of men with a sweet dream of antiquity; [and] that, after Sirmond, Petavius, Petrus de Marca, Morinus, Launoi, after Valesius, Huetius, and many others, Cotelier also pronounces candidly on these matters, often approves of the diligence of the learned men among our own, and discusses everything with the same liberty. Whence there is hope that at some time more light will shine upon ecclesiastical dogmas, [and] the controversies agitated in the schools, with shameful...