gaps and lacunae occur, certainly in most of the codices from which other works of the Fathers have been brought to the public, and they are polluted by faults neither lighter nor less frequent. But no one, surely, could ever rightfully say that these are fighting against the truth and authenticity A of those very same works. Furthermore, Tentzel does not object to us any other errors in the Florentine codex than those which were previously pointed out by Ussher, Vossius, and Pearson. How, then, could those writers—whom the same Tentzel rightly calls lynx-eyed and sharp-sighted—fail to notice such a degree of blindness, and that from it the certainty of the Ignatian writings would waver and be shaken? There was surely no other cause than that they themselves possessed a keener and more equitable judgment than to believe, on account of certain various errors of the scribes, that the certainty of these epistles, or of any other treatise whatsoever, was shaken. But it seems to us utterly superfluous and useless to pursue these matters further, or to linger in long refutation of this opinion, which is as abhorrent to the truth itself as it is to the sentiments of others.
ANDREAS GALLANDIUS: PROOEMIA TO THE EPISTLES OF SAINT IGNATIUS AND THE ACTS OF HIS MARTYRDOM.
(Veterum Patrum Biblioth., vol. I, Venice 1765, Proleg., p. LIV.)CHAPTER ONE
Saint Ignatius wrote seven epistles. There is a double copy of them: one genuine, another interpolated. Leaving the latter aside, we deal with the former, the principal editions of which are proposed. The best of all is that of Thomas Smith.The second century of ecclesiastical writers begins with St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and martyr; from whom seven epistles are known, inscribed to the Smyrneans, Polycarp, the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Philadelphians, the Trallians, and the Romans. There exist two Greek copies of these: one shorter, genuine, and sincere; the other longer, interpolated. Setting aside the latter, which does not pertain to our undertaking, we shall now speak of the former.
The shorter epistles, therefore, which Eusebius possessed, which Polycarp published, and which Ignatius wrote—to speak with Pearson—were first brought to light at Amsterdam in 1646, in quarto, by Isaac Vossius from the one surviving manuscript codex of the Medicean library, and he added the ancient Latin version, which James Ussher had published at Oxford in 1644, responding almost in all respects to the Greek copy. But since the Epistle to the Romans was absent from that Florentine codex, Vossius undertook to restore it to its integrity from the edition of the interpolated ones, under the guidance of the ancient translator. This Vossian edition, and indeed a more corrected one, was again published by Ussher first in London in 1647, then by Cotelier at Paris in 1672.
B But in the year 1689, the Epistle to the Romans, which was missing in the Medicean manuscript codex, and which contained the text of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, and which was exactly conformed to the ancient Ussherian interpreter, was made public at Paris by Theodoric Ruinart in his *Sincere Acts of the Martyrs*, rendered by the illustrious editor; which was subsequently brought out one, along with the Acts of the Ignatian martyrdom, in the year 1699 in the second volume of the *Spicilegium SS. Patrum* by John Ernest Grabe at Oxford. From this source, John Clericus, in his Cotelier edition, repeated twice in the years 1698 and 1724 at Amsterdam, is found to have added the same Epistle to the Romans, revised by the Ruinartian version, to the six other genuine ones: in the editing of which, however, we know he used a freedom which seems by no means to be approved, as will be evident from what is to be said presently.
C Furthermore, from the example of the Medicean codex, which the learned Anthony Maria Salvini had copied with new and most accurate study, Henry Aldrich issued another edition at Oxford in 1708, who took care that the Greek text, as the manuscript exhibits it, should be printed exactly according to his powers. Thomas Smith passed a very harsh judgment on this edition in a letter written at Westminster on March 3, 1708-9, to Thomas Hearne; for in it he notes not only the lighter errors with which every page is swarming, whence also the reading is often deformed; but he also holds forth a few other things from the many which are repugnant to the laws of grammar or the mind of the author. This letter of Smith, along with others pertaining to the Ignatian Epistles, Hearne himself decided to bring to light in the Appendix to volume II of the *Chronicle of John the monk of Glastonbury*, pages 461-469, published in the year 1726.
D In the following year, 1709, there also appeared at Oxford a most excellent edition by the aforementioned Thomas Smith; which, indeed, although it was also possessed by Clericus in the second Cotelier edition, was subsequently followed by John Louis Frey and Richard Russel: the former in the *Epistles of the Holy Apostolic Fathers*, which were printed at Basel in the year 1742; the latter, indeed, in the
works of the same Holy Apostolic Fathers, which were published in London in the year 1746. Since, however, we have determined that this edition of Smith is to be followed in preference to the rest, it is worthwhile here to describe what the learned editor explains regarding his project, both in the preface and in the letter to Hearne, which has just been mentioned.
Smith therefore testifies that the papers of John Ledgard were most opportunely transmitted to him, containing a collation of the Vossian edition with the Medicean codex, which he had completed at the request of John Pearson while he was residing in Florence; and he reveals that the plan for such a collation had been suggested to Pearson by Vossius himself: for he suspected that while Vossius had been occupied in transcribing that codex, he had read a few things incorrectly and had passed over some other points out of haste and weariness. Ledgard is found to have discharged this task with a keenness of eye and sharpness of wit, and with perfect fidelity; to him, through leisure, came a more mature deliberation and an easier task of comparing the printed copy with the manuscript: indeed, he went so far that he recorded in writing, almost to the point of nausea, even the most minute variations, not to say the merest trifles. Smith also mentions this entire Ledgardian collation in two of his letters concerning the Ignatian writings, which Hearne submitted to the public. A
Supported by this aid, which is certainly not mediocre, this man, highly experienced in this class of studies, applied himself to adorning his own edition. What had been either rashly omitted or perversely transcribed in the Vossian edition, he supplied and amended from this new collation of Ledgard, adding also here and there in the margins of the page brief scholia and conjectures, by which the reading of the text is rendered clearer and more corrected, easily catching the eye.
Nor should we omit here what our shrewd editor cautions in the aforementioned letter to Hearne, where he speaks of those who were in charge of overseeing the Aldrichian edition: "D. Vossius," he says, "seems to deserve little to be excused by the most rigid critics, who, in his Epistle to St. Polycarp, section 5, inserted the negative particle *µὴ* between *ὁμιλίαν* and *ποιοῦ*, although it is plainly absent from the Florentine codex, as I myself observed in the notes, nor did the old Usserian interpreter read it in his codex: moved by whose reverence and authority, I erased it from my copy, or at least I wished that it might have been included within brackets to indicate that it was an addition: but I do not know by what accident that correction was omitted. In the same Epistle to St. Polycarp, section 7, and in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, section 10 (which correction is at the end of the page there), *ἐπεὶ δέ* is read instead of *ἐπειδή*, as I corrected it from the papers of D. Ledgard; but it was neglected amidst the tumult of the press." Thus far the learned Smith: to whose warning we have indeed yielded, removing the error in both places and circumscribing the negative particle *µὴ* with brackets: a thing which, to be sure, was never done in previous editions. B
Thus far concerning the six epistles from the Medicean codex. Smith has taken the *Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius* from the Ruinartian edition; and, following it too meticulously, he expressed it almost to the letter, so that he might not appear to have rashly changed anything in the text: reserving for himself the correction of the errors that strike the eye in the notes meanwhile.
To this, the same editor added the old Latin version of the Greek text—a barbaric one, indeed, but faithfullly and exactly expressed word for word; this he also compared with new diligence against the Cambridge manuscript codex, correcting the errors of that which Ussher had used, who was the first to bring it to light.
Although Smith employed great diligence in preparing his Ignatian edition, as becomes sufficiently clear from what has been said, there have nevertheless not been lacking those who have affirmed that he expressed the Florentine codex less accurately. For Gronovius deals a heavy blow to him, while he blames Vossius: just as if he had forced upon us, under the guidance of the latter or at the very beginning of his Oxford edition—namely, in the very title of the Epistle to the Smyrnæans—a corrupt reading of this kind, *πνεύματι καὶ λόγῳ Θεοῦ*; yet, if you listen to the critic, the abbreviated note of the Medicean codex should clearly have been read as *πνευματικῷ λόγῳ Θεοῦ*. But Smith, following the Ledgardian collation, seems in the scholia to the same epistle to have anticipated Gronovius in these words: " *Καὶ λόγῳ Θεοῦ*. Thus also our old interpreter and the interpolator read it, distinctly and separately, not by way of apposition, as a certain learned man interprets it from the accidental omission of this conjunctive particle in the Vossian (old) version." These are his words: so that the learned man is consequently thought to have sought to render, not only that reading, but the entire Smithian edition itself, suspect without cause. C
CHAPTER II.
The edition of Thomas Smith is brought to press, with the editor's scholia omitted: in their place, we have first set forth the complete excerpts of the ancient Fathers, transcribed from the genuine epistles: then there are subjoined the fragments of the same epistles, as many as exist in the Rupfucaldian Damascene Parallels. By the help of these, the sincere text is either confirmed, or corrected, or even sometimes supplied.
But while we have followed the project of this English editor in publishing the genuine epistles of St. Ignatius, we have also set forth our own in a certain way, as we have selected his copy to be printed above the others. We have thought, however, that the scholia of Smith himself, as well as those of Pearson and other learned men, should be omitted so that the work might not grow too large. Although perhaps someone might take this plan ill, especially since the text appears here and there to be beset with errors, which certainly ought to have been provided corrected, at least in the notes. What should I say? For that indeed D
A for that reason he strove to soften. And rightly so: for the opinion of Ignatius, Justin, Tatian, Tertullian, and other most ancient Fathers concerning the Son of God begotten *according to the will of God* is to be accepted in the sense in which the very great man Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet vigorously defends and learnedly explains it (5).
Let us proceed further. In the same epistle to the Smyrnaeans, these words occur (6): *they abstain from Eucharist and prayer*. Which passage is indeed rendered thus by Theodoret (7): *they do not admit Eucharist and offerings*. But the ancient translator (Usserianus) favors the reading of the Medicean codex, which therefore seems to be preferred to that of Theodoret. To this passage, let us add one more remarkable one offered by the epistle to the Ephesians. It is of this kind (8): *There is one physician... become God in flesh, in immortal B life true*: which certainly the ancient translator was also reading in his own exemplar; for he translates: *in immortal life true*. But the context revolts; and it must be entirely rewritten, *in death life true* (*en thanatō zōē alēthinē*): in the way that the ancient Fathers, Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius, read it in their own codices, as is discovered from these brought forward in their places below. But let these suffice; from which you may perceive how much aid is added hereby to the clearing of the text, if for anyone some suspicion of its integrity should rightly arise.
But our concern has advanced even further toward the same goal. Namely, to those fragments which follow the epistles of Ignatius, we have added certain excerpts from the author of the *Rupescaucoldian Parallels*, whom the illustrious Lequien correctly judges to be a whole century older than Damascenus. Yet no one would truly say that these excerpts should C not be highly valued; since it is certainly established that that writer, whoever he may have been, copied them from the genuine epistles of Ignatius, if you except the one inscribed to the Romans, and that he used a codex more emended than the Medicean: so that consequently the reading of the vulgate text is not only confirmed by them, but is even emended and generally rendered much more correct. And that the matter may be proven by some examples, it will be helpful to set down here some passages compared with the printed text.
EPISTLE TO THE SMYRNAEANS
| | Edit. from Medicean Cod. | From the Rupescaucald. Parallel. | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Chap. IX. | To become sober... we have. | To become sober us... we have. | | Chap. XI. | For they wish to do us well, God is ready to provide. | For they wish to do us well, God is ready to provide. |
TO POLYCARP
| | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Chap. I. | Be wakeful, possessing an unsleeping spirit. | Be wakeful, possessing an unsleeping eye. |
TO THE EPHESIANS
| | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | D Chap. VI. | Some are accustomed to bear the name with evil guile. | Some are accustomed to bear the name of Christ with evil guile. |
| Edit. ex cod. Mediceo. A Ex Parallel. Rupefucald.
Cap. XI. Let us love the present grace; in the present life, in Christ alone.
Cap. XIV. Faith is the beginning, and love is the end; and both, being in unity, are God... No one who professes faith, errs; nor does one who possesses love... to be Christ’s.
AD MAGNESIOS.
Cap. III. It is fitting to obey without any hypocrisy... but he deludes the invisible [God]; and such a one, the argument is not against flesh.
AD TRALLIANOS.
Cap. VI. The times act as an interloper. B
Cap. VIII. Let no one among you hold anything against his neighbor. Without [deceit]... lest... the people of God be blasphemed.
And they act as interlopers. Let no one among you hold anything against his neighbor, without... lest the divine people be blasphemed... Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and inaccessible, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten. » One is the Physician, both fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, etc.
Hence, indeed, are recognized these excerpts as likely to be no small help for either emending the Ignatian text or even repairing it in some places. But so that readers may use them more readily, we have arranged them in the order in which the epistles occur, both in the Florentine codex and in the edition of Smith published here in print.
CAPUT III. The opinion of Simon and Tentzel concerning the Medicean MS. codex. Whence Suicer drew his Ignatian materials, cast into his *Thesaurus*. Epistles that are interpolated, or even supposititious, have sometimes been incorrectly considered by some learned men as genuine. The edition of the epistles inscribed to the Romans, which Clericus undertook to prepare, is held not to be the most faithful.
And I truly marvel that these kinds of excerpts have hitherto been either unobserved or perhaps neglected by the learned men who, after Smith, took care to publish the epistles of the holy martyr again. For I except Smith, whose Oxford edition had already come to light before those Parallela from the Rupefucaldinian MS. were published. C Had these, indeed, at some time become known to Richard Simon, I doubt not that he would have determined to correct the Medicean codex from these, rather than from an interpolator. By the same token, Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel perhaps would have refrained from pronouncing that opinion, that "nothing should be held for Ignatian except what is attributed to that most holy man by the Fathers of the four centuries after the martyrdom of Ignatius." That learned man, surely, moved by some flaws or variations in the Florentine MS., contended that its authority should be lowered: whose objections, however, Grabe and Nourry, meeting them, sufficiently accurately refuted; they would have done so even more potently if it had been permitted them to inspect the same Parallela themselves.
That Suicer also joined Tentzel in an undeserved contempt for the same Medicean MS. occurred to my mind, D though he may have wandered into a different opinion than the Tentzelian. For in leafing through his *Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus*, it fell to me to discover—nor indeed without wonder—that he had passed off the "Ignatiaster" for the true Ignatius to the reader here and there. Lest I be too long, I am pleased to offer only two passages. The first occurs in the phrase "The Unbegotten," where he cites the words from the very beginning as if they were Ignatian, which are nevertheless reported to be taken from the interpolated epistle to the Ephesians, cap. 7, and thus they stand: "The apostolic man in the same genuine epistle, l. c., thus writes: 'The other passage exists in the phrase 'The Atonement' [antipsychon]: for there, after he had brought forward an example of this word from the genuine epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 10, he brings forward another from the interpolated epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 21. Nor content with these, he recites similar things from the supposititious epistles to the Antiochians, to Hero, to the Tarsians, and to the Philippians: and he urges all these upon us as if they were written by the most holy bishop of Antioch and martyr, Ignatius. Whence you may gather that Suicer has accepted all the epistles that exist—whether sincere, or interpolated, or finally supposititious—indiscriminately as true Ignatian [works].
With these things noted about Suicer’s *Thesaurus*, a passage comes to mind taken from the apocryphal epistle to the Antiochians, which I remember reading at one time both in the notes and in the Scholia of Nobilius on Isaiah ix, 6, in the Sixtine Bibles of the Septuagint. But indeed, Nobilius seems to be excusable, since the genuine Ignatian epistles were not yet detected at that time. Yet one may perhaps rightly wonder whether other learned men—Calmet, Sabbatier, and... [are to be treated with] the same indulgence.
A Furthermore, having seized this occasion, it would perhaps not be useless to mention that fragment which, taken from the homily of John Chrysostom, *On not anathemathizing the living or the dead* (19), we have placed first among the Ignatian epistles. It runs as follows: «Ὁ τρόπος ὁ περιθεὶς ἑαυτῷ ἁλουργίδα βασιλικὴν ἰδιώτης τυγχάνων, αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ αὐτῷ συνεργήσαντες, ὡς τύραννοι ἀναιροῦνται· οὕτως, ἔφη, οἱ τῇ δεσποτικῇ ἀποφάσει χρησάμενοι, καὶ ἀνάθημα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ποιήσαντες ἄνθρωπον, εἰς παντελῆ ὄλεθρον ἀπάγουσιν ἑαυτοὺς, τὴν ἀξίαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀφαρπάζοντες.» That is: *Just as if someone, while being a private citizen, should put on the royal purple, both he himself and his accomplices are put to death as tyrants: so, he says, those who employ the Dominical decree and make a person an anathema of the Church, lead themselves into utter destruction, usurping the dignity of the Son.* B We decided that this statement should be placed among the other Ignatian sayings which do not exist in the sincere epistles, moved by the reverence and authority of the holy doctor; for while about to set forth such a pronouncement, he addresses his listeners with these words: «Βούλεσθε μαθεῖν, οἷά τις ἐφθέγξατο ἅγιος τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν τῆς διαδοχῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενος, ὃς καὶ μαρτυρίου ἠξίωτο;» *Do you wish to learn what a certain holy man said, who was of the succession of the apostles before us, and who was accounted worthy of martyrdom?* For whom else among the apostolic succession would Chrysostom have meant, speaking at Antioch, than Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch? As the illustrious Montfaucon rightly argues (20). Baronius, who first discovered the passage (21), conjectured that the epistle to the Smyrnaeans had been before the eyes of the holy Father, where these things are read (22): «Εἰ γὰρ ὁ βασιλεῦσιν ἐπεγειρόμενος, κολάσεως ἄξιος δικαίως γενήσεται, ὡς γε παραλύων τὴν κοινὴν εὐνομίαν· πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας, ὁ ἄνευ ἐπισκόπου τί ποιεῖν προαιρούμενος, καὶ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν διασπῶν, καὶ τὴν εὐταξίαν συγχέων;» *For if he who rises up against kings is justly accounted worthy of punishment, as one who dissolves the common good order: by how much worse a punishment do you think he will be worthy, who prefers to do anything without the bishop, and breaks up unity, and confuses good order?* D The same father of ecclesiastical annals held that Chrysostom rendered the force but not the words of this passage, and that he had adapted it to his own proposal. Tillemont, however, thinks otherwise (23), for whom this Ignatian passage seems to have almost no affinity with that of Chrysostom. Montfaucon, however, yields to the opinion of Baronius.
A What do you ask? Indeed, it occurs to wonder why neither Tillemont nor Montfaucon, who also brings forward the Greek Ignatian text, as he himself thinks, came into suspicion that those words were written not by Ignatius, but by an "Ignatizer," and that they do not exist in the sincere, but in the interpolated epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Baronius is certainly to be indulged for the same reason for which we wished a little while ago to excuse Nobilius. What then, you will say, must be decided concerning Chrysostom? We believe that one must think of him thus: that the holy doctor looked to some writing of the holy martyr, whether epistolary or of another kind, now lost; or, if you prefer, that a manuscript of the Ignatian epistles, interpolated, fell into his hands at some time, which he thought to be genuine—which, however, I would scarcely believe; or finally, that he himself perhaps cast his eyes upon another apostolic man than Ignatius. But enough of these things: which we have judged ought to be noted not only for this reason, that the authority of such learned men might not deceive inattentive readers, but also primarily so that the due honor belonging to the genuine epistles might stand more firmly, being placed in safety.
But before the speech turns elsewhere, some things must be warned of here regarding the epistle of Ignatius inscribed to the Romans which is missing in the Medicean codex, and things must be added to those which we have touched upon above regarding this matter. Therefore, about to commit this epistle to print, we chose the copy of Smith, diligently examined according to the edition of Ruinart; for it did not please us to follow Clericus in the second Cotelerian edition of the Apostolic Fathers, who, not even with a warning to the reader, gradually refashioned the text of both the epistle itself and the Martyrdom of Ignatius, and added his own interpretation to it, unchanged, just as it pleased him. Take one or two specimens of this intolerable license. In the inscription of the epistle, the Ruinart edition has Πατρὸς ὑψίστου. So also the Logothetes. But Clericus, with Ussher, has ὑψίστου Πατρός. In the same place, according to Ruinart, καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Metaphrastes also has the word μόνου, and the old translator reads it in his codex. Clericus, however, preferred with Ussher, μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ Υἱοῦ. In the same place Ruinart, ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται, where Smith appropriately observes that the emphatic particle καὶ had been badly omitted in the common editions; which, nevertheless, Clericus, following Ussher, is found to have omitted. In the same place, near the end, the copy of Ruinart has, ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ. But Clericus, ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ Θεῷ. Ussher indeed has Κυρίῳ, but retains the article τῷ Θεῷ, omitted by Clericus: which is primarily to be noted. In a word, the Amsterdam editor, having abandoned the Ruinart edition everywhere, followed Ussher almost everywhere.
But he nonetheless, when he could not find this epistle of Ignatius in any manuscript codex, attempted to rescue it from interpolations by the guidance of one ancient translator. And so that the matter might be proven by experiment, let the reader consult Grabe (24); who exhibited the Ruinart copy verbatim, and cast various Ussherian readings into the margin of every page: which indeed, when diligently compared with Le Clerc's edition, one will easily perceive have had not a few things added, changed, or transposed. Whether this was done rightly or wrongly, we leave it to others to decide. For we, content with having culled a few things for the sake of an example from one inscription of the epistle, hasten to other matters.
CHAPTER IV
Who, above others, defended the integrity of these epistles. The latest hater of them, Oudin, is sharply rebuked by the distinguished Mamachi. Heumann, likewise, as a frequent follower of Oudin, is censured; and his objection concerning Latin words mixed into the Greek text is exploded. The epistles were written by Ignatius at the time when he was sent from Antioch to Rome to be consumed by martyrdom.A Now, among those who published defenses for sincere epistles, no one is ignorant that Pearson stands out; whether you look at the sharpness of his genius and judgment, or consider his manifold and exquisite erudition, or weigh the abundance and gravity of his arguments. Truly, although the work of Pearson is so clear, Matthew Larroque and Casimir Oudin have attempted to attack it. And that their attempts were vain, was demonstrated in the first place partly by George Bull (36), partly by Nicolaus Nourry (37), and others: so that Le Clerc rightly judged, when he stated (38): "Those skilled in these matters, having diligently read both works, denied that that learned man had in any way undermined Pearson's arguments." But we know that the dissertation of Oudin (39)—whom we are told had for the most part restored the objections of Daillé and his followers—has been recently refuted by Thomas Maria Mamachi (40), a man outstanding in doctrine and learning, with such force of arguments combined with the dignity of elocution, that the distinguished gentleman can rightly use that Tullian phrase: "I have suffered him to stand in no place." And I would wish you to understand B from this that the arguments of Heumann are solved at the same time; for he asserts (41) that the better arguments of Oudin, contracted in a few words, appear to him as the most certain indications of the spuriousness of the Ignatian epistles. And indeed, the same judgment had been passed by Heumann himself in the *Acta eruditorum* (42), reviewing the Oxford edition of Smith; whose opinion it later pleased Oudin to transfer into his praised dissertation (43).
But the method of our undertaking would now demand that a discourse be held concerning the integrity of these epistles. But we would truly be doing something already done, since several learned men have already performed that duty so strenuously that no room for doubt at all remains regarding this matter, provided that each one, having put aside preconceived opinions for a time, diligently examines the arguments brought forward on both sides with a sincere mind and frank spirit. The principal Ignatian apologists are provided by both Amsterdam editions of the Apostolic Fathers by Cotelier: to which, however, Tillemont (25), Natal Alexander (26), Nourry (27), and Ceillier (28) are to be added. Nor should Wotton (29), Le Clerc (30), Wesseling (31), and Johann Ludwig Frey (32) be omitted: who drew their pens for the genuineness of the shorter Epistles against William Whiston, who strongly defended not only the seven longer epistles, but also three pseudepigrapha—to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to Hero—as C genuine in his *Primitive Christianity Revived* (33). Not long ago, Johann Philipp Baratier (34) approached Whiston very closely, who, although he acknowledges the shorter epistles as sincere, yet judges that the longer ones, or those interpolated, enjoy the same right. But it seems that he is the fruit of a premature talent: and for that reason the most learned youth, who is found to have contemplated great things, is to be received graciously; because not only is that age not envied, as Cicero truly and wisely says (35), but it is even favored.
Furthermore, since that German critic in that Leipzig review—which the most learned Mamachi omitted, although it was approved by Oudin—carries himself as if he also adds that among the notes of the supposition of these same epistles, some Latin words are found mixed in with the Greek words, of which kind are *ἐξεμπλάριον* (44), *δεσέρτωρ*, *δεπόσιτα*, *ἀκκέσπτα* (45); and he complains accordingly that Pearson and Smith passed over those places entirely, because they were
A in his judgment sufficiently inconvenient and excessively troublesome. Here at last, that sort of objection is removed, since Vossius and Cotelier do not seem to our censor to have done enough. Let us settle the matter in a few words. If the sincerity of Saint Ignatius’s epistles is imperiled because some Latin words occur in them, then the scriptures of the New Testament must also surely be considered shouted down. For we read in them *κεντουρίων* (46), *κήνσος* (47), *κουστωδία* (48), *πραιτώριον* (49), *σιμικίνθιον* (50), *σουδάριον* (51), *σπεκουλάτωρ* (52), *τίτλος* (53). If, I say, due to this reason the Ignatian epistles are to be held as interpolated or pseudepigraphical, then the authority of the New Testament must of necessity collapse. But who of sound mind would dare not only to say this, but even to think it regarding divinely inspired letters? Or do those words, *κεντουρίων, κήνσος, κουστωδία*, etc., sound more purely and chastely Greek than *ἐξεμπλάριον, δεσέρτωρ, δεπόσιτα*, etc.? But if it was permitted for the apostles and evangelists, for Matthew (or, if you prefer, his interpreter), for Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, while writing in Greek, to occasionally use Roman words, why not also for Ignatius, a disciple of the apostles? But this method of writing is not to be attributed as a fault to the divine authors, and therefore with better right, neither to the holy bishop of Antioch: for the occasion of the time demanded it; since the Roman Empire had at that time been propagated far and wide through almost all of Greece, Syria, Egypt, etc., as the illustrious Blackwall (54) argues excellently. Nor did it fare differently with the ancient writers of Greece, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon; among whom C one reads *ἀκινάκης, ἄσχυ, βάρις, κανδός, κάρανος, κάσας, παρασάγγης* and other foreign, Persian, or Egyptian words: because, evidently, in that age when those most learned writers of Greece flourished, wars, commerce, and journeys of the Persians, Egyptians, and other nations of the East had introduced many exotic words of this kind into the Greek language. And from this, surely, everyone understands how unworthily that critic leveled these objections.
But the discussion must be turned to another matter: for it is in our interest to define the chronology of the time in which the seven epistles are said to have been written by Ignatius. It is certain, with Eusebius as our witness (55), that the holy martyr composed them during that journey, when, by the command of Trajan Augustus, he was being led from Antioch to Rome to be exposed to wild beasts. And indeed, when he had arrived in Smyrna, he sent four of them from that city: to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, and to the Romans: but having proceeded further, while he was staying in Troas, he sent the remaining three from there D to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans, and privately to Polycarp, their bishop. But in what year these events took place must be discussed more opportunely in the following chapter.
Chapter V
*Concerning the sincere Acts of the Ignatian martyrdom first published by the distinguished Theodoric Ruinart. The old interpretation of each is added: the integrity asserted in a few words.*To the genuine epistles of St. Ignatius, we have added the sincere Acts of his martyrdom, following the Oxford edition of Smith, as we indicated above. Beside the Greek text, first published from the Colbertine codex by the distinguished Theodoric Ruinart, we have placed a double Latin version: one, certainly, of an old interpreter, already long ago edited by Ussher from the Caius College manuscript; and the other, indeed, prepared by the same Ruinart: for we have held in higher regard the one that Clericus reformed, for the reason we mentioned a little earlier. We have also added separately another ancient version, transcribed from the Cottonian codex by the aforementioned Ussher; because its author is recognized as having had a true copy of the Greek Acts before his eyes, even if he did not at all times attain the sense or the words of the text. We decided that both old interpreters should be produced for this purpose, so that greater light might come to the Greek, in places where it might appear not sufficiently clear or less corrected.
Concerning the authority of these Acts, there is no one who can rightly doubt in the least. For, to speak with Smith (56), they were written by the intimates of St. Ignatius who accompanied him from Antioch all the way to Rome, and who were present at his final and most glorious struggle, as much in the Acts themselves makes most evident. For thus speak those who handed them down in writing (57): *Ἡμεῖς μὲν ἄκοντες ἀπηγόμεθα, στένοντες ἐπὶ τῷ ἀφ' ἡμῶν μέλλοντι χωρισμῷ τοῦ δικαίου γίνεσθαι.* We, indeed, were led away against our will, groaning because of the separation from the just man that was soon to happen to us. And with a few things inserted toward the end (58): *Τούτων αὐτόπται γενόμενοι.* Having ourselves become spectators of these things. These, I say, and others, place beyond all doubt that Acts of this kind were written by the companions of St. Ignatius: and indeed, not long after his consummation, and in the following year, as seems most likely; while the deeds, along with the account of the whole journey, were more faithfully held in recent memory. Those, moreover, were Philo and Agathopus, whom the most holy martyr mentions in the Epistles to the Smyrnaeans (59) and to the Philadelphians (60), the latter of Antioch, the former indeed of Tarsus.
A Since it can scarcely be doubted by anyone that he was the deacon of the Church, thus far the learned man; who also, against the cavils of Rivet, Blondel, and others, subjoins many things worthy of reading regarding the journey undertaken and recorded in those same Acts. Yet to these, one thing may be permitted to be added: namely, that Crocus should be joined to Philo and Agathopus at least by name, he who is reported to have accompanied the holy martyr as far as Rome. For he mentions him in the epistle to the Romans in these words (61): "I write to you these things from Smyrna. But there is also with me, along with many others, Crocus, a name desired by me." Furthermore, I write these things to you from Smyrna... "But there is with me, along with many others, Crocus, a name desired by me": so that, therefore, we remain entirely ignorant as to who or how many wrote these Acts. B Yet it is clearly evident that this does not at all harm their integrity, since we are generally ignorant of who committed to writing many other sincere Acts of the martyrs. Some indeed have set out to attack the truth of these Acts, among whom Oudin is found to take the lead: for his confidence proceeded to such a point that he conjectured that St. Ignatius had died in peace at Antioch (62); perhaps moved by the doubt of Scaliger, who once asked to be taught why Ignatius had finally been led from Syria to Rome (63). But the learned man (65) praised by us above has thoroughly overturned the opinion of Oudin, which Heumann also had long ago revived (64).
CHAPTER VI.
Regarding the time when the holy martyr is thought to have suffered, two more famous opinions are brought forward: one of which assigns his martyrdom to the year 116, the other to 107. The latter seems preferable to the former: and thus the Ignatian epistles are considered to have been written while the very year 107 was current; C but the Acts of the martyrdom are judged to have been committed to writing in the following year, 108. However, other more judicious critics maintain that those same Acts are pure and genuine, and not to be called into question by anyone with any justification. And they indeed conjecture that very few things in them were corrupted by the error of scribes, especially those things which regard the years of the reign of Trajan and the notation of the consuls: but these men, although they do not acknowledge this ancient monument to be entirely faultless, nevertheless judge that, as far as the time marked in it is concerned, it is intact and genuine. Grabes alone, accepting the better chapters of these Acts as sincere (66), judges the last part to be entirely spurious and stitched on by some interpolator. Hence, therefore, have arisen the various opinions of learned men. D Regarding the defining of the year in which the glorious martyr Ignatius died. Among these, two more famous ones are circulated: of which one stipulates that that martyrdom is to be bound to the year of Christ 116, the other to the year 107. And the former was devised and defended by Pearson in a posthumous dissertation concerning the year in which St. Ignatius was condemned by Trajan at Antioch to the beasts, first conjectured by Thomas Smith in his Oxford Ignatian edition. Soon William Lloyd joined Pearson in a dissertation of the same argument, which Anthony Pagi edited and approved (67): and following them in succession were Grabe, Smith, and Lequien (68). But this opinion adheres primarily to the authority of John Malalas, who asserts (69) that at the time when the earthquake occurred at Antioch, while the emperor was still acting there, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was crowned by martyrdom. "And the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was martyred under him." But the same author shortly before this offers the characteristics of that earthquake as follows: "Under the reign of the most divine Trajan, the great Antioch, which is situated by Daphne, suffered its third calamity, in the month of Apelleus, which is also December, on the 23rd day, the first day of the week, after cock-crowing, in the year 164 as reckoned by the Antiochenes." Divinissimo Trajano imperante, the great Antioch near Daphne suffered its third calamity, in the month of Apelleus or December, on the twenty-third day, the first day of the week, after cock-crowing, in the year of the Antiochene era 164, which year began from the Kalends of September of the 115th year of the vulgar era. That earthquake, therefore, occurred towards the end of the same year 115, namely on the twenty-third day of the following December, falling on the first day of the week; and, as Dio testifies (70), it nearly crushed Trajan as he was wintering there. But since it was the custom among idolaters to weave calumnies for the destruction of Christians, and to attribute public calamities to them above all others, from this the critics just praised deduce that, at the beginning of the year 116, Trajan, being about to lead the army against the Parthians in the following spring, had called Ignatius, the illustrious teacher of the Christians in Syria, into judgment, and having ordered him to be led to Rome, condemned to the beasts for openly confessing Christ and rebuking him for his superstition: at which place, having arrived after a long journey, he was crowned by martyrdom at the end of the same year 116, on the 20th of December, as his Acts testify (71). With these things set down, the Ignatian epistles were therefore written, according to the mind of the aforementioned learned men, in the same year of the vulgar era 116, and the Acts of the martyrdom were committed to writing in the following year, 117. But the latter opinion, which above others...A deserves to be accepted, is that which relies most sincerely upon the Ignatian Acts. For in these we read that Trajan, after the conclusion of the Dacian war, in the ninth year of his reign, *the ninth (year) of his reign*, hastened to wage war upon the Armenians and Parthians, *hastening against Armenia and the Parthians*, and set out on his eastern journey towards the end, specifically, of the preceding year, 106; for since Trajan, as even John Malalas himself testifies, departed from Rome in the month of Hyperberetæus or October, and arrived the following month, Apellæus or December, at Seleucia, he finally entered Antioch of Syria in the month *of Audynæus, which is January, on the seventh day, the fifth day of the week, at the fourth hour of the morning*. From which, Usserius gathers from the character of the fifth day of the week, coinciding with the seventh day of January in the year of the Christian era 107, that in this very year, at the beginning, St. Ignatius was condemned by Trajan as he made preparations at Antioch for the Parthian expedition; who, therefore, in the course of the same year, the tenth of Trajan's reign, on the 20th of December, underwent martyrdom: and thus the epistles were written by him in that very current year 107, and the Acts of his martyrdom were published in the following year, 108. In Malalas, indeed, whether through his own ignorance or the carelessness of copyists, certain errors are known to have crept into the notation of the times, both of the reign of Trajan and of the Ignatian martyrdom: yet these are easily corrected by the things which Usserius, Chilmeadus, and others have pointed out: whether so that the praised chronicler might be consistent with himself, or so that his statements might be found not to conflict with more ancient monuments, especially the Chronicon of Eusebius. C
Furthermore, so that what has been recounted hitherto might correspond with the remaining deeds of Trajan in the East, it seems that Tillemont was right to conjecture that a double Parthian expedition was undertaken by him; whose opinion, therefore, has recently been embraced and is reported to have been more powerfully confirmed by that man of distinguished elegance of letters, Eduardus Corsinius. We know that against this Corsinian Dissertation were proposed "Doubts" by Erasmus Froelich, a man most learned in more refined scholarship; which, however, the aforementioned learned man took upon himself to refute in another Dissertation. But leaving the judgment to the arbitration of critical men concerning this learned disputation, in the meantime, so far as our subject is concerned, it will be helpful to hear Corsinius himself thus speaking: "Vaillantius," he says, "in *Arsacidarum Historia* B thought that the Parthian expedition was undertaken only in the year U.C. 865; just as certainly Loydius, Fabrettus, Norisius, Pagius, Basnagius, and many others contend that this Parthian journey took place after his sixth consulship, in the year U.C. 865, undertaken by Trajan from Rome. But Tillemont, whom certainly no one has examined this series of times and deeds more subtly and accurately, insisting on the footsteps of Baronius and Petavius, demonstrates that this Parthian expedition of Trajan Caesar took place at the end of the year U.C. 859. But in order that all things which had been proposed by Norisius and the others might be accurately explained and at the same time reconciled, Tillemont himself observed that a double journey of Trajan to the East must be distinguished: so that in the first, indeed, Trajan reduced Armenia and Mesopotamia to the form of a Roman province and left the kingdom of Parthia to Chosroes; but in the second, having expelled Chosroes, he granted another king to the Parthians themselves."
And indeed, I should have thought that it could also be shown from coins, if they are compared with the History of Dio, that Trajan, having already long ago recovered Armenia, returned to Rome, and again set out from Rome to the East. For since that writer said that Armenia was recovered by Trajan Caesar without a battle and was made tributary to the Roman people, he soon adds: *The satraps and kings of that region met him with gifts... He punished Parthamasiris, the king of the Armenians. But when he had taken the whole region of the Armenians, and many of the kings of those who had submitted he treated as friends, but some also who had died* (I think it should be read *ἀπόντας* [absent], D so that these latter ones, as if absent, might be distinguished from the former who had met Trajan) *he subdued without a battle; and the senate voted him many other things, and named him 'Optimus', or in other words 'Best'.* The satraps who held the region and the kings met him with gifts. He punished Parthamasiris, the king of the Armenians; and having captured the whole region of Armenia, he kept the kings who had made surrender in the number of his friends; some, however, he even captured who were absent, without a battle; and the senate decreed him many other things, and especially granted him the title of 'Optimus'. Thus, from Dio and also from Zonaras, it is clear that the title of 'Optimus' was then first granted to Trajan Caesar at Rome, when he had occupied Armenia upon the expulsion of Parthamasirides and the total removal of other petty kings: and therefore, since the title of 'Optimus' occurs attributed to Trajan on many coins struck at Rome, in which he himself is called Consul...
v. Indeed, if that coin was struck when Trajan first arrived at Antioch, as the illustrious editor believed, it becomes clear that Trajan had departed for the East before his sixth consulship, and thus before the year 865 of the city; just as, indeed, that arrival at Antioch is attributed in Malalas' *History* (90) to the year 860 of the city, by clear chronological markers; and it is read clearly and distinctly in the Acts of the holy martyr Ignatius that that martyr was presented to Trajan while he was dwelling at Antioch and preparing to march against the Armenians and Parthians in the ninth year of Trajan's reign, in the consulship of Sura and Senecio, that is, in the year 860, at the beginning of the month of January. Finally, another excellent coin of Trajan is possessed (91) in which Caesar himself is called Optimus, Augustus, Germanicus, Dacicus, Parthicus, and at the same time the tenth year of his reign is seen displayed. Therefore, in the year 864 of the city, in which the tenth year of his reign falls, Trajan had already received the name of Optimus and, at least from the soldiers, the name of Parthicus: and therefore the Parthian expedition undertaken by him ought to be referred to the year 859 of the city.
"Therefore, not only from the writers whom Tillemont has exhibited most accurately, but from Latin and Greek coins—which I have here brought forward the more willingly so that the Acts of the martyr Ignatius, which had been so vexed, might derive from them a splendor and a defense—it can by now be shown that a double expedition of Trajan into the East must be acknowledged: namely, that in the first, once Chosroes had been appeased, he received only hostages from him, and obtained the name of 'Parthicus' only after Nisibis and Batnae had been taken; but in the second, when Chosroes had been either expelled by the Parthians themselves, or had violated the faith he pledged to Trajan, he appointed a new king for the Parthians themselves." So far that most learned man. Nor would I wish to omit what Baraterius (92) has not long since opposed to the patrons of the Pearsonian opinion. For if those things are compared with the tenets of Tillemont and Corsini, the matter is finally brought to such a point that it seems completely settled; and therefore from now on no one can rightly doubt the sincerity of the Acts of the martyrdom of Ignatius. B
Now, however, in order to disentangle the difficulty which is usually sought from the same Acts, where the martyrdom of S. Ignatius is recorded as occurring C *while Sura and Senecio were consuls for the second time among the Romans* (παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις Σύρα καὶ Σενεκίου τὸ δεύτερον), when it is certain from the *Fasti* (93) that in the year of the Christian era 107, Senecio was consul for the fourth time and Sura for the third; the most accurate Tillemont (94) brings forward more than Ussher. To these things it is better to add what the most ample prelate Francesco Bianchini (95) has learnedly observed regarding the ancient interpreter of those same Acts. But the nature of our undertaking does not allow us to dwell on these things for too long.
Here we merely wish to warn the reader that we ourselves at first adhered to the opinion defended by Pearson and others, attaching the Ignatian epistles to the year 116, while we were seeing to their being printed; but, having later examined the matter more attentively, we now at last conclude that the other opinion ought to be followed, since it seems to us to be confirmed by stronger arguments; and we therefore believe that the same epistles were written by S. Ignatius in the current year 107, and his Martyrdom Acts were committed to writing in the following year, 108.