THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
are combated which belong to a later period than the opening years of the second century. It is still a question whether one heresy or two (a Gnostic-Docetic and a Judaizing) may be discerned. In favor of the view once held by Baur, that the epistles presuppose the existence of the great Gnostic system, that of Valentinus and Marcion, Hilgenfeld is almost alone. Lipsius places the Docetism attacked by Ignatius later than Saturninus, though still before Valentinus, and thus dates the letters between 130 and 140. But a careful study of the question makes it fairly certain that they must have been written before Gnosticism grew to threatening dimensions, which occurred precisely in those years. In any case, too little is known of its earlier stages to assert that no such heretics as are described in the letters existed in the opening years of the second century; and it is safe to say that if their genuineness is accepted on other grounds, this offers no reason to doubt it. (4) It is also contended that the organization of the Church, especially the episcopate, belongs to a later period. It is perfectly true that the epistles know three orders — bishops, presbyters, and deacons, of which the second is already subordinate to the first — and Ignatius lays great stress upon the function of the episcopate in the interests of unity. But if there is here a step in advance of Clement of Rome and the " Shepherd of Hermas " the stage which appears in Ireneeus is still more advanced. There are abundant traces of a recent and as yet incomplete elevation of the episcopate over the presbyterate ; it is a local, not a universal, office, and does not carry with it the guardianship of the teaching tradition; it is valued largely as a center of unity for the local church, a safeguard against centrifugal tendencies, and a guaranty for the future permanence and purity of Christianity.
While it would, then, be too much to say that all difficulties have been removed, the discussion has reached a stage when such as remain are not to be set against a single piece of strong external evidence; and such evidence exists in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which is itself definitely attested by Irena?us. This can only be met by declaring it forged or largely interpolated. The former view offers great difficulty in the face of the evidence; the latter, more often put forward (most acutely by Ritschl), falls before the unity of the whole letter and the fact that such very extensive interpolations would have to be supposed in order to remove all traces of the Ignatian epistles.
(G. UHLHORNf.)
It seems highly probable that even the shorter Greek form has suffered extensive interpolation, how extensive no one is in a position to determine. The cautious student of the history of polity and doctrine will decline to base important conclusions on the unsupported testimony of these writings. Even if the reference to Ignatian epistles in the epistle of Polycarp be genuine, this would not prove the authenticity of the epistles in their present form .
A. H. N.
Bibliography: A very full list of works is given in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 10-15. The earlier editions of note are those of J. E. Grabe, in his Spicilegium, Oxford, 1700;
T. Smith, London, 1709 (Greek-Latin, shorter form)- W. W. Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity, London 1711 (Greek-English, longer and shorter forms, Smith's text). Modern editions are: MPG, v. 643 sqq.- \V Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, London, 1845; idem, Corpus Ignatianum ib. 1849; T. Zahn, Patrum apostolicorum opera, vol. ii.' Leipsic, 1876; P. de Lagarde, Gottingen, 1882 (shorter Latin recension); F. X. Funk, Opera patrum apostolicorum, Tubingen, 1887; idem, Patres apostolici, vol. i., ib., 1901- J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part II., 2 vols., London 1889 (both forms). The most accessible Eng. transl. is in ANF, i. 45 sqq.
All of the editions noted above are rich in notes and introductions upon the critical questions involved. Consult further: J. Pearson, Vindicice Ignatianae, Cambridge, 1672, reissued Oxford, 1852; R. Rothe, Die Anfange der christlichen Kirche, pp. 713-784, Wittenberg, 1837; W. Cureton, Vindicice Ignatiance, London, 1846; C. C. J. von Bunsen, Ignatius von Antioch, Hamburg, 1847; idem Hippolytus and His Age, i. 88-103, London, 1854; F. c! Baur, Die ignatianischen Briefe, Tubingen, 1848; H. Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit des Textes des Ignatius, Wiirzburg, 1849; A. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, pp. 577-589, Bonn, 1850; R. A. Lipsius, in ZHT 1856; idem, in ZWT, xvii (1874), 209 sqq.; A. Merx| Meletemeta Ignatiana, Halle, 1861; T. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873; E. Renan, Les Evangiles, Paris, 1877; A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius von Antiochien, Leipsic, 1878; idem, Litteratur, i. 73 sqq. et passim, ii. 1, pp. 381-400; idem, in TV, ii. 1 and 2, 1884; F. X. Funk[ Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe, Tubingen, 1883; idem, in KL, vi. 581-590; W. D. Killen, The Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious, Edinburgh, 1886; L\ Volter, Die ignatianischen Briefe, Tubingen, 1892; J. Reville, Les Origines de I 'episcopal, pp. 442-481, Paris, 1894; G. A. Simcox, in The Academy, Nov. 24, 1894; J. H. Srawley, Epistles of St.^ Ignatius, 2 vols., London, 1900; H. de Genouillac, L'Eglise chretienne au temps de S. Ignace d'Antioche, Paris, 1908; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 47 sqq., 651 sqq.; Moeller, Christian Church, i. 112 sqq.; Kriiger, History, pp. 28-34; DCB, iii. 209-222; and, in general, modern treatments of the post-apostolic period of church history.
IGNATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Patriarch of
Constantinople 846-857, and 867-878 (or 877); b. about 799; d. at Constantinople Oct. 23, 878 (or 877). He was a son of Emperor Michael I., and his real name was Niketas. On being shut up in a monastery by Leo V. he called himself Ignatius. He was early chosen abbot and consecrated priest, and in 846, at the instigation of Theodora, the widow of Emperor Theophilus, he was elected patriarch. He found a vehement opponent in Gregory Asbesta, archbishop of Syracuse, who from the beginning disputed the legitimacy of the election of Ignatius. The matter was brought before Pope Leo IV., who was on the side of Ignatius, but Leo died before he was able to give a documentary decision; and on Nov. 23, 857, Ignatius was deposed. The occasion for this act was given by the attitude of Ignatius toward Bardas, the brother of Theodora, who lived in incestuous relation with the widow of his son. In 857, at the Feast of Epiphany, Ignatius prohibited him from participating in the Lord's Supper and refused to offer him assistance in the removal of his mother, whom he disliked. Bardas avenged himself by deposing the patriarch. Photius (q.v.) became his successor, and from this time dates the controversy which ended in the separation of the Churches of the Orient and Occident. Despite the support of Pope Nicholas I., Ignatius was degraded at a synod held in Constantinople in 861, was cruelly treated, and forced to retire to the monastery on