ON THE DOCTRINE OF SAINT IGNATIUS
(LUMPER, *Theological-critical History of the Life, Writings, and Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, etc.* Augsburg, 1783, octavo, Vol. I, p. 305.)
ARTICLE I. DOGMATIC OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENUINE EPISTLES OF SAINT IGNATIUS MARTYR.
§ I. On Holy Scripture and Tradition.
We asserted a little above that Saint Ignatius, in his genuine epistles, made reference to no apocryphal book, not even the "Gospel of the Hebrews." He divides the sacred books into three collections: the Gospel, the Apostles, and the Prophets. The writings of the New Testament from which he cites include the Gospels of Matthew and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, the first and second to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, the first to the Thessalonians, the second to Timothy, the Epistle to Philemon, the first of Peter, and the third of John. The specific passages exist in Lardner, whose book we do not wish to copy out. We set down here only those which show, against Semler, that the Epistle to Philemon was read for its utility by the earliest Christians; and further, that which teaches against not a few others that the third Epistle of John had already been read and approved at that time. For Saint Ignatius seems to have had regard for the phrasing of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon in his own Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 2, where he says: "May I have joy of you A in the Gospel of common hope." He brings these arguments to show that we ought to revere the authors of the Old Testament with the greatest veneration. He has the same formula also in the Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 12, to Polycarp, ch. 6, and the manner of speaking of the blessed evangelist John in the epistle to the Magnesians where he says: "Be ye confirmed in flesh and spirit."
Among other truths worthy of careful consideration which Saint Ignatius Martyr hands down, he inculcates with great energy of speech to the faithful that the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments are to be venerated. Behold what he teaches concerning the Old Testament: "Let us love the prophets" (he speaks thus to the Philadelphians) "as those who announced the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hoping in Him, and expecting Him (Jesus Christ), and obtaining salvation through Him, having received testimony from Jesus Christ." B But he progresses further, speaking of the Gospel and the writings of the apostles. For he declares that "he flees to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus Christ, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church," namely, as to the teaching of those who first founded the Church. "I beseech you therefore," he adds, "that you do nothing through contention, but according to the discipline of Christ. For I have heard some saying: Unless I find it in the records, I do not believe it in the Gospel. But to me the records are Jesus Christ; the inviolable records are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is through Him." And a little later: "The Gospel has something excellent, namely, the advent of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection, the Gospel of perfection and incorruption." Who does not see in these various texts the reverence of Saint Ignatius toward the divine Scriptures?
Although nothing occurs in the epistles of Saint Ignatius regarding tradition, nonetheless it is established from other sources that among the essential dogmas which this bishop communicated to the churches of all the cities through which he passed on his journey toward Rome, he commended to them above all things that they should tenaciously adhere to the traditions of the apostles—which he deemed necessary to entrust to writing, so that they might arrive more safely to all posterity. C This Ignatius, Eusebius thus speaks, "while he was being led through Asia under the most careful custody of guards, nevertheless, confirming with his discourses and exhortations the Churches of the individual cities which he entered, warned them in the first place to beware of the perverse opinions of heretics, which, having begun for the first time to emerge into the light, were then spreading more abundantly, and exhorted them to adhere tenaciously to the traditions of the apostles, which indeed, even for the sake of greater certainty regarding posterity..."
he deemed necessary to entrust to writing. It is clearer than the midday sun that he is speaking of non-written tradition, since Eusebius records that the Antiochene bishop deemed it necessary to commit them to writing so that they might reach posterity more safely—a thing which certainly cannot be said of doctrine already consigned to letters.
II. Of the Church, its ministers, schism, heresy, the fleeing of heretics, and their marks.
A The true Church, according to St. Ignatius, can be distinguished by these marks: that it is one (8), catholic (9), incorruptible (10), and so distributed (11) that bishops are greater than presbyters; these indeed are greater than deacons, without whom it may not endure. He teaches further (13) that just as where Christ is, there also is the Catholic Church, so also there must be held a gathering of the faithful where the bishop is. No altar (14) has validity unless it is that which is in communion with him; for that is the place of unity (15).
But if, in opposition to errors and depraved B doctrines... [Ignatian excerpts (8–15) omitted—see facsimile].
A It is, meanwhile, their office (19) to display the doctrine and works of Jesus Christ in themselves. It is the bishop’s place to hold a gathering of the faithful (20), and to preside over it; without him, it is not lawful to baptize, nor to celebrate the agape, nor to undertake anything else that concerns the Church. It behoves his vigilance, likewise, to look over all the faithful who take part in the gatherings, and to make inquiries of each one by name, etc. The days on which one ought to gather were not yet fixed in those times; but St. Ignatius commends (21) that they have them as often as possible. But if anything happened of more serious moment, the prayer of one or another has such great strength, how much more that which belongs to the bishop and the whole Church? Whoever, therefore, does not come into the gathering, has already been puffed up with pride, and has separated and judged himself. For it is written: “God resists the proud” (Jas. IV, 6); let us therefore strive not to resist the bishop, that we may be subject to God. — *Ad Ephes.*, cap. 5.
C ...guard yourselves: which will happen if you have not been puffed up, and have remained undivided from God, Jesus Christ, and from the bishop, and the precepts of the apostles. — *Ad Trall.*, c. 7.
...“Let us all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father.” — *Ad Smyrn.*, c. 8.
“Jesus Christ is our inseparable life, is the sentence of the Father; and those bishops, defined throughout the ends of the earth, are the sentence of Jesus Christ.” — *Ad Ephes.*, c. 3. “Whomever the head of a family sends to govern his own household, we ought to receive him as we would him who sent him. It is therefore manifest that one ought to look to the bishop as to the Lord himself.” — *Ibid.*, cap. 6. “Therefore I exhort that this be your endeavor: to do all things in the concord of God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God...” — *Ad Magnes.*, cap. 6.
D ...is partly concerned with the offices of bishops. ...that gatherings be held more often; that he inquire of everyone by name. — *Ad Polycarp.*, c. 4. “Without the bishop, let no one do any of those things which pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is under the bishop, or him to whom he has granted it. Where the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be... It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to celebrate the agape; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is also well-pleasing to God, so that it may be safe and valid, whatsoever is done.” — *Ad Smyrn.*, c. 8. “It is fitting not only to be called Christians, but also to be so; just as some indeed name the bishop, but do all things without him. Such persons, however, do not seem to be possessed of a good conscience, because they are not gathered stably according to the commandment.” — *Ad Magnes.*, c. 4.
...*supra*. — “Give diligence to gather together more often to give thanks to God, and to praise him. For when you gather more frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the concord of your faith is solved by the ruin which he brings.” — *Ad Ephes.*, c. 13.
A (22) As to defining the matter, that which was to be summoned in every church by each of the bishops was that they be participants in the ministry, pure in body as well as in soul.
S. Ignatius could not more openly explain how much he abhorred schism and heresy than he did in those words (29). If anyone follows him who makes a schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in a foreign opinion, he does not consent to the Passion. In another place, he classes heresy (30) with the greatest crimes, and says that he who corrupts the faith of the Church, like one who listens to a teacher of novelties, is to be tormented with eternal fires. Yet he was not of the opinion that the sins (31) of schism and heresy could not be forgiven, and he confesses in general that God (32) spares all those who repent with a sincere mind and return to the communion of the Church and the bishop.
He further says (33) that S. Ignatius held that Jesus Christ had raised the prophets from the dead, because they had awaited him in the Spirit and had held him as their own teacher and master; that he himself is the door (34) through which one goes to the Father, and through which the patriarchs and prophets entered, and that they formed one body through the unity of the same faith. He (35) also causes men who are subject to sins to be converted. The holy martyr also seems to have thought that... B S. Ignatius, if I am not mistaken, sufficiently indicates what he thought of the pre-eminence of the Roman Church by the many and magnificent titles which he heaps upon that praised Church in his epistle to the Romans (27). That it presides (doubtless over all the faithful) he affirms twice in this same preface, which is found to have been said of no other Church among those to which he writes.
In his salutations he makes mention of virgins (28) who were called widows. These were deaconesses, to whom the name of widows was always given, either because they were for the most part truly widows, or because the custom of calling them so had already prevailed, and this perhaps arose from the fact that in some way they were ecclesiastical... C ...dignified by decorum, worthy, worthy to be preached as blessed, worthy of praise, worthy to obtain their desire, worthily chaste, excelling in charity, distinguished by the name of Christ and the Father; whom I also embrace in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father... » *Init. epist. ad Roman.*
D ...in Asia... whom I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ... especially if they are one with the bishop, and those who are with him, the presbyters and deacons designated by the mind of Jesus Christ, whom according to his own will he has confirmed in stability through his Spirit. » *Init. epist. ad Philadelph.*
« I exhort you to do everything in the concord of God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the apostolic senate. » *Ad Magnes.*, cap. 6.
« ...do nothing, but also be subject to the presbytery... let all revere the presbyters, as the council of God. » *Ad Trall.*, cap. 2 et 3.
« ... [is] to the bishop, as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ. » *Ad Magnes.*, cap. 1.
« ...in the will of him who wills all things, etc... which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God... »
A that the spirits of men in the heavens are solicitous about the Church and the faithful, when he wrote these things to the Trallians (36): « May my spirit be a purification for you, not only now, but also when I shall have attained to God. » He also distinguishes 37 the various ranks of angels and orders of principalities from one another, and signifies that the SS. Peter and Paul preached the faith to the Romans 38.
B When it happened that any of the faithful shed their blood for the faith, a gathering was held to render thanks to God through Jesus Christ, and for this reason, hymns and songs were sung together. We understand, moreover, from that lofty sentiment of St. Ignatius which he sets forward in his epistles 40, that in his desire to suffer martyrdom, he firmly believed he would immediately enjoy the presence of God in the heavens. It may also seem worthy of observation that he forbids those in slavery serving the Church from desiring manumission, « Lest, » he says, 41 « they become slaves of lusts... » Furthermore, he describes the heretics of his own time thus: 42 « Consider those who maintain opinions alien to the grace of Jesus Christ, which came to us, how they are contrary to the mind of God: they have no concern for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the bound or the loosened, none for the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior, which suffered for our sins, which the Father by his kindness raised up. Therefore, those who contradict this gift of God die in their disputings. It would be useful for them to love, that they might also rise again. » C He also reproaches the same ones, saying that even to that day 43 neither the prophets, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel, nor the torments of the martyrs had been able to recall them from error. Concerning these, too, it is to be understood 44 that he says: « Every creature in the heavens, angels of whatever glory they may shine with, principalities visible and invisible, are to be condemned to dire punishments unless they believe in the blood of Christ. »
§ III. On the Trinity of the Divine Persons, the Eternity of the Son of God, his Consubstantiality, and the Divinity of Christ.
D ...of two natures, one person, and the divine maternity of the B.V. Mary. Two passages occur in the letter to the Magnesians in which mention is made of the SS. Trinity. In the first, these words are read 45: « Strive therefore to be confirmed in the dogmas of the Lord and the apostles, that all things which you do may prosper for you, in flesh and spirit, in faith and truth, in the Son and in the Father, and in the Holy Spirit, in the beginning and in the end. » And after a few words interjected: « Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ and the Father, and the Spirit. » It is to be observed here in passing that St. Ignatius speaks here of the subjection of Jesus Christ as he is man, or according to the flesh, *κατὰ σάρκα*.
In many places this holy martyr professes the Son of God to be true God, coeternal with his Father. But he declares this in most lucid words in the ep. to the Magnesians, where he says 46: « There is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word, not proceeding from silence. » Now if Christ is the Word coeternal with his Father, it is absolutely necessary that he himself be of the same nature as he, and that he be God just as he is. The same holy martyr, in his letter to Polycarp, his most holy fellow bishop: « Expect him who is above time, the timeless, the invisible, who for our sake became visible, the impalpable, the impassible, who for our sake became passible, who in every way suffered for our sake 47. » He speaks here manifestly of the Son of God, attributing to him, besides other divine attributes, also this: that he is *ὑπέρκαιρος, ἄχρονος*, « above time, without time, » that is, eternal. For such was the simplicity of this apostolic man that he is by no means to be thought to have played with the word « time, » as the crafty Arians did later.
That Jesus Christ is true God is a truth which this holy prelate assumes as a certainty, as is gleaned from the phrases he uses when speaking of him: for he says to the Ephesians 48: « But our God Jesus Christ, *Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός*, was carried in the womb by Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the seed of David, but of the Holy Spirit. » And again, in the same epistle: « ...of his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding from silence, *οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών*. » It does not escape me that there are those who contend from this place that these epistles of Ignatius are not his: for those words, *οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών*, « not proceeding from silence, » attack the error proper to Valentinus, as it seems to them, which had not yet arisen while Ignatius was living. But to this objection an easy response is available; for the most learned Bull, in *Defens. fidei Nicænæ*, sect. 3, c. 1, pp. 174–187, very solidly demonstrated that Ignatius, in the words brought forward and in the whole passage to which those words pertain, respects neither the Valentinians nor the Ebionites, but attacks those Judaizing Gnostics whose leader was Cerinthus (who was long before Valentinus, and thus was contemporary with the apostles themselves; whose heresy most disturbed the Asiatic churches in the times of Ignatius).
A of God from the seed of David, but from the Holy Spirit.” In the same epistle, c. 19: “Deo humanitus (that is, in human flesh) manifestato in novitatem vitae aeternae” (*God manifest humanly into the newness of eternal life*). And c. 20: “Jesu Christo secundum carnem ex genere Davidis, Filio hominis, et Filio Dei” (*to Jesus Christ according to the flesh from the race of David, the Son of man, and Son of God*). In the inscription of the epistle to the Romans, Jesus Christ is twice called *Deus noster* (*our God*). And in the epistle itself (49) these things are held: “For Jesus Christ our God, existing in the Father, is more manifested.” He begins the epistle to the Smyrnaeans with these words: “I glorify Jesus Christ the God (τὸν Θεὸν) who makes you so wise.” But the passage in the epistle to the Ephesians is foremost in being illustrious, where Ignatius speaks thus of Christ: “Εἷς Ἰατρός ἐστι, σαρκικὸς καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς, καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς, καὶ τότε ἀπαθὴς, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν” (*There is one Physician, both carnal and spiritual, born and unborn [or better, made and not made], God in flesh, true life in death, and from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord*). These words of St. Ignatius, cited by Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius against the ancient impugners of Christ’s divinity, explain it so invincibly that they have been able to be refuted by no one to this day. Wherefore, a certain recent writer of the Socinian sect, since he could not obscure the clarity of this testimony by any arts of an impious mind, arrived at such a pitch of impudence as to dare to write: that in the epistles of Ignatius certain inconvenient and insipid propositions are found, and that therefore he could have easily been deceived in his opinion on the divinity of Christ by the tradition of some pseudo-Christ and pseudo-apostle. But no one has ever assigned any inconvenient or insipid proposition in the Ignatian epistles. Furthermore, if we grant that Ignatius in certain minute matters had deflected somewhat from apostolic doctrine, could it for that reason seem probable to anyone that he had been so shamefully deceived in an article of the Christian faith of such great moment? Is there anyone who would even suspect that Ignatius, who had lived so familiarly with the apostles of Jesus Christ, and whom the whole of antiquity hands down as a martyr of the apostolic faith, had been deceived by a pseudo-apostle regarding the primary doctrine of Christianity? *Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego...* (*Let Apella the Jew believe it, not I...*) Those rash responses of impious men must therefore be exploded, and one must adhere to that doctrine for which not only Ignatius, but innumerable martyrs poured out their blood with admirable and clearly divine constancy.
B Elsewhere, it easily becomes known to all that the passages of St. Ignatius cited thus far contend equally for the divinity of the Savior, for the unity of his person, for his two natures, and for the divine maternity of Mary. For he confesses that Jesus Christ is at once true God and true man, created and uncreated, God existing in man, true life in death, the Son of God coeternal with his Father, always existing in him and with him, equal in power, but subject according to the flesh, and as the son of Mary, that he truly died, and rose again, and that no hope of salvation remains for us without him; and that the prince of this world was likewise ignorant of his death, as well as the virginity and childbearing of Mary.
The unity of person is proven in particular by those words of Ignatius to the Magnesians: “All of you flock together... as to one Jesus Christ, who comes forth from the one Father, and exists in the one, and returns to the one.” He records the two natures of Jesus Christ everywhere (54) in such a way that they were in reality distinct from one another, nor C were they mixed, or confused, but one in him.
D
St. Ignatius proves with many arguments, against the phantasiasts, the truth of the incarnation and that Christ truly suffered and rose again. Among other things, he reasons thus: “If, as some atheists, that is, infidels, say, he (Christ) suffered only in appearance, they themselves existing in appearance, why am I in bonds? And why do I pray to fight with wild beasts? In vain, therefore, do I die.” A “Assuredly,” he adds furthermore, “I do not utter lies about the Lord,” *ἄρα οὐ καταψεύδομαι τοῦ Κυρίου*. “Flee, therefore,” he concludes, speaking of the phantasiasts, “flee these malignant branches which produce deadly fruit, of which if one tastes, he immediately dies (55).”
§ IV. Concerning the real presence of the body of Christ in the eucharist, concerning the deacons as ministers of the eucharist, and concerning the holy altar of the Christians.
Of the ancient writers, our Ignatius in particular most explicitly teaches that the body of Christ is present in the eucharist. For when he is speaking of the heretics who raved that Christ had assumed not a true, but a feigned and simulated flesh, he brings forth words most worthy of note: “They abstain,” he says, “from the eucharist, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins (56).” And indeed, if the Christians at that time had been of the same opinion as our Calvinists, that the eucharist is merely a bare figure of the body of Christ, should it not have been rejected by them rather than baptism, which is truly called a figure of the death of Christ? Nay, rather, the eucharist, no less than baptism, should have been embraced by them with both arms; for they concluded that Christ existed nowhere except in figure, not in reality. Since, therefore, they abstained from it, they held the belief that the true body of Christ was in it.
Perhaps someone will object that the eucharist, even if it were a bare figure of the body of Christ, was for that reason rejected by them B as, as Tertullian says (57): “A vain thing, which is a phantom, does not admit of a figure.” But that authority of Tertullian is wrongly adduced here. For that learned man there refutes Marcion, who raved that Christ was a feigned man and a phantom, with this testimony of Jeremiah, who says: *Come, let us put wood into his bread* (58), and shows that in that place bread is not termed a simple and bare figure of Christ, but a prophetic one. But in the eucharist, according to the opinion of the Calvinists, it is not a prophetic figure of a body to come, but a figure of a body truly existing. But who will call into question that a figure can exist of some body which exists only simulate and feignedly? Those heretics, therefore, ought not to have rejected the eucharist on this account, just as they ought not to have rejected baptism, which they contended was a feigned figure of Christ's death. When Claudius Charentonensis, formerly a minister, felt the force of this argument, he moved to a different opinion. He replied, therefore (59), that those heretics foolishly believed that Christ, who had a true body, had in these words, *This is my body*, truly adopted bread so that it might become his body. And to prove this, he produces as a witness the passage from Tertullian which we cited above. But Tertullian made not even the slightest mention there of that foolish opinion of the heretics. He insists, based on Bellarmine, that it was not so much the sacrament of the eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation that was impugned by those heretics. What of it? Can the mystery of the Incarnation be impugned in no other way than by saying that Christ adopted bread so that it might be his body? That these things are indeed vain and futile, no one fails to see.
C It is also to be observed that the deacons are counted by Ignatius among the sacred ministers of the eucharistic sacrament; the deacons must be ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ... For they are not ministers of food and drink (60). Hence also St. Stephen, one of the seven first deacons of the Church, D “of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, whom the Father in his goodness raised up.” He abstains from the eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, whom the Father in his goodness raised up (Epist. to the Smyrn., c. 7). These words provide sure testimony concerning the real presence of the body of Christ in the most holy sacrament of the altar. And indeed, what clearer or more certain thing can be said for this truth under controversy in our days than what St. Ignatius teaches, namely, that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; the very same flesh which suffered for our sins, and which the Father later raised up? How can such phrases be reconciled with the figurative sense of the innovators? Let no one wonder, therefore, if he sees them rejecting the authority of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, whose doctrine is diametrically opposed to their own.
A is called by Ambrose a "minister of the altar" (61). And Saint Lawrence, in the presence of the same doctor (62), addresses Sixtus the Supreme Pontiff in these words: "Test whether you have chosen a suitable minister, to whom you have committed the consecration of the Blood of the Lord." But that which must be noted most of all in the words of St. Ignatius is what he himself added concerning these same deacons: "For they are not ministers of food and drink." For indeed, they were ordained by the Apostles first of all, so that they might take care of widows and the poor. Truly, that secondary duty of theirs, even if it provided the occasion for their original election, was nonetheless subject to mutations in certain regions a little while later. Furthermore, if the Emperor Justinian and the Trullan Synod (63) defined anything to the contrary in this matter, out of a poor understanding of the words of the Council of Neocaesarea and Saint Chrysostom, they departed from the ancient tradition of the Fathers.
Neither should that which Ignatius writes to the Ephesians (64) concerning the sacred altar of the Christians be noted only in a perfunctory manner: "If anyone is not within the altar, *τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου*, he is deprived of the bread of God." And to the Philadelphians (65): "For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the union of his blood, one altar, *ἕν θυσιαστήριον*." In these places it is most certain that the term *θυσιαστήριον* is used in its proper, true, and genuine signification; namely, for the sacred table, upon which the Body of Christ is immolated; whence the Calvinists are surely refuted, who, denying that the true Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist, also deny that the term *θυσιαστήριον*, or altar, was accepted by the ancient Fathers in its true and proper sense throughout the first three centuries. But Vedelius objects in vain: that the Eucharist in the time of Ignatius was administered at a wooden table, which was not properly called an altar. For it is uncertain, first, whether they used a wooden or a stone table in these times of the Church. Secondly, not the material, whether stone or wood, but the sacrifice offered upon the table by men to God constitutes that which is properly called an altar. Nor is it of any greater moment that the same Vedelius contends—because some canons (66) forbade women to approach the altar—that Ignatius is therefore to be understood not as speaking of a material thing, but of a spiritual one, i.e., of prayers and petitions. In truth, the same Vedelius, when he cites these canons, which use the word "altar" in its true and genuine sense, imprudently slays himself. Furthermore, Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist, and therefore it is necessary that he speaks not of a spiritual and metaphorical altar, but of a material and true one. Finally, if access to the altar was once forbidden to women, it was prohibited to them only during the times of the divine office, but not when the Eucharist was to be received.
You will argue: In the first centuries of the Church, the term "altar" was used more rarely by the Fathers, who, when they debated against the Gentiles, constantly denied that there were any altars for Christians. But you may easily respond to these: First, that the term "altar" was used by Ignatius, and why not by other Fathers whose writings have perished,—not B rarely, but often. Secondly, if the first Fathers of the Church, in their writings and disputes against the pagans, said that Christians had no altars, in other works or sermons delivered to Christians, they assert that they did have their own altars. Wherefore, since those most ancient writers cannot be contrary to themselves, they are undoubtedly to be understood, where they deny it, as speaking of public altars, in which sacrifices were made with the greatest display and in the manner of the pagans. And certainly, since they affirm with every assurance that the Eucharist itself is the true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, they could not deny that there was some true and proper altar among Christians.
Discussing the sacrament of the Eucharist, Saint Ignatius simultaneously declares this divine food to be a kind of remedy which produces immortality: *Φάρμακον ἀθανασίας*, "a medicine of immortality" (67); C he calls this divine sacrament by this glorious name, and immediately adds that this sacrament is an antidote, "so that we may not die, but live forever in Jesus Christ." Magnificent phrases of this kind in an author as ancient as Saint Ignatius evidently show the highest veneration with which these divine mysteries were worshipped in the first times of the Church.
ARTICLE II.
MORAL OBSERVATIONS
Beyond the obligations concerning bishops, presbyters, and deacons, he also treats the duties and obligations of Christians in the epistle to Polycarp (68), in which he adorns those who live the celibate life (69) with great praises: yet he does not wish them to be puffed up with vain glory on that account. Truly those who contract marriage, he himself adds (70), should do so with the bishop's approval, so that the marriage may be according to God, and not according to desire.
In his epistle to the Ephesians, the holy martyr commends... D
(65) Chap. 4. (66) Concil. Laodicenum, canon 44. (67) Epist. ad Ephes., cap. 20. (68) Chap. 6. (69) "If anyone remains in chastity for the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him remain in humility. If he boasts, he is lost. And if he considers himself greater than the bishop, he is lost." Epist. ad Polycarp., c. 5. (70) "It is fitting for those who marry and those who are married to make their union with the consent of the bishop, so that the marriage may be according..."
to God, and not according to desire." In the same place, the holy doctor requires the opinion, or blessing, of the bishop, so that the marriage may confer grace.
A No one who promises faith sins, nor does anyone who possesses charity hate. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; similarly, those who profess themselves to be Christians will be seen by what they do. For it is not the act of promising now, but if one is found to be faithful until the end through the power of faith (73). Concerning fear, the sequence holds: "Let us revere and fear the long-suffering of God, so that it may not turn to our judgment. For let us fear the future wrath, or love the present grace; one of the two, provided we are found in Christ Jesus to live the true life (74)."
ARTICLE III. DISCIPLINARY OBSERVATIONS
Besides other points of discipline occurring among the dogmatic observations, this also is to be noted in the letters of St. Ignatius: that when a certain bishop happened to be absent from his church without any hope of return, his ministry was not, for that cause, transferred to a senior among the presbyters (75), and often a younger presbyter (76) was raised to the episcopate, putting aside those who were older.
Finally, we observe that at that time the Lord's Day, in place of the Sabbath, was accustomed to be observed in memory of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For St. Ignatius says in his letter to the Magnesians (77): "They (the prophets) came to the newness of life, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's Day, in which our life also arose through Jesus Christ and his death."