In Phil. ii. 1 we find similar advice with regard to the KaKodLdacTKaXlas, ' those noxious herbs, which are not the husbandry of Jesus Christ' (iii. 1). If anj'one interprets the prophets in the sense of Judaism (idv rts lovdal'afiov ip/j.rji'eijTi iifuv), the Phila- delphians are not to listen ; ' for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised ' (vi. 1). The Docetists whom Ignatius accuses of 'juda- izing ' are uncircumcised — apparently Greeks.
Again in Smyrn. ii., Ignatius repeats that Christ suttered really (dXijdios liradev), really rose again (dXT]du3s dv^tTTTjaev eavrdv), and did not sufl"er only in appearance (rb doKeiv Trewovdivat) ' as certain un- believers say ' (here the reference is apparently to the same Docetists as are described in Trail.). If it was only in semblance (rb doKeiv) that Christ lived His life on earth, then it is only in semblance that Ignatius is in chains (KdyCo rb 8oKeTt> diSefiai, iv. 2) ; but Christ's Passion was as real as Ignatius', and what profit is it to him if men praise him and blaspheme the Lord, not confessing that He was a bearer of flesh ? (v. 2). Here we have an indication that Docetists were to be found in Smyrna and that they were anxious to deal kindly with the captive Ignatius, but he would have none of them. The names of these men are the names of infidels (oi/d/Mara dincTa), which he will not even write. ' Far be it from me even to remember them, until they repent and return to the i)assion ' (v. 3), i.e. to faith in the reality of the Passion of Christ. Note that the Docetists he denounces had not penetrated to Ephesus, they had met with no sue-
ig:n^atius
IGi^ATIUS
601
cess in Tralles, and Ignatius puts the Srayrnseans on their guard against these ' wild beasts in liuman form ' {dirb tQv drfploiv tCiv dvOpuTronopcpuv). Tlie Smymseans are not to -welcome tliem (wapa8exe(r6aL), nor even to meet them {ffwavrdv), but to pray for their conversion, however difficult such conversion may be (iv. 1). ' I have learned,' he writes to the Ephesians (ix. 1), 'that certain persons passed through you from yonder' (iKeWev : here again, as in Smyrn., he mentions no names. The heretics may possibly have come from Smyrna, and, in any case, they infest Asia and are an equal peril to the Philippians. There is nothing to prove that Ignatius did not become acquainted with them in Antioch). In the Letter to the Romans, no heretics are mentioned.
The heretics denounced hj Ignatius in Asia, and perhaps more definitely in Smyrna, are not Judaizers in the proper sense of the word, for thej' only ' judaize' to the extent of denying the flesh of Christ and the redemptive power of His Passion. They are at war with the hierarchy, are dissenters from the Church, and seem to have separated them- selves voluntarily. Ignatius speaks of them as 'outside the sanctuary' (^/crds 6v(Tiaa'TTjplov), i.e. ' without the bishop and presbytery and deacons ' {Trail, vii. 2). Wheresoever the bishop is, there the people should be, 'even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church' (iKei i] KadoXiKi] iKK\-qaia, Smyrn. viii. 2). Here we have for the first time in history the terra KadoKiK-fi iKK\ri<jia in the sense of ' universal Church,' the universality of the Church throughout the world being con- trasted with the local churches where each has its own bishop (Lightfoot, pp. 310-312 ; cf. Smyrn. i. 2 : iv evi (rwyuari t^s €KK\T]aLas). The epithet KaOo- XiK-q is used in a geographical sense, and not yet in its ecclesiastical sense, where 'catholic' is con- trasted with ' heretical ' (cf . 1 Clem. lix. 2 and Dldache, ix. 4).
4. Sources of Ignatius' teaching. — Among the sources of Ignatius' teaching, first place must be given to St. Paul. In his letters Ignatius never fails to do special honour to the churches he addresses if they have received a letter from St. Paul, e.g. the Ephesians (Eph. viii. 1, xii. 2) and the Romans {Rom. iv. 3). In all his letters we find reminiscences of the Pauline Epistles, esp. 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., Gal., Phil., 1 and 2 Thess., PhUem., Eph., Col., 1 and 2 Tim., and Titus (see E. von der Goltz, Ignatms von Antiochien als Christ unci Theologe [ = TS xii. 3, Leipzig, 1894], pp. 178-194, who gives parallel texts of Ignatius and St. Paul). We might add 1 Pet. {ib. p. 194 f.), but the dependence of Ignatius on Heb. and James is not evident.
According to von der Goltz, Ignatius did not know the Fourth Gospel, although his letters are full of Johannine thoughts, but merely partici- pated in the Johannine Gedankenwelt, without actually reading the Gospel. It is more probable, however, that Ignatius used the Fourth Gospel, without quoting it. It is a very curious fact that in his Letter to the Ephesians Ignatius makes not the slightest allusion to the Apostle John. Ignatius certainly knew the Synoptic tradition, for there are clear traces of his dependence on Matthew, although we have no sign of dependence on Mark, and only one doubtful allusion to Luke.
Ignatius makes frequent appeal to what he calls evayyiXiov, to the apostles, <and to the prophets : ' taking refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus and in the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church. Yea, and we love the prophets also' {Philad. V. 1 f. ). The prophets are the OT {Srnyrn. V. 1) ; the Gospel gives us authentic knowledge of Jesus Christ {xpi-<^To/j.adiav, Philad. viii. 2). In this connexion Ignatius writes : ' For I heard certain