APOSTOLIC FATHERS 197 eren in the shorter epistles. Other critics maintain that the shorter Syriac forms are alone genuine, that they are not epitomes, but the original letters, and they appeal to the circumstance that all the references to the epistles up to the time of Eusebius belong exclusively to the three
- Syriac epistles. < The question is embittered by a keen
controversy in regard to Episcopacy, the Ignatian letters being supposed to afford strong evidence of the early institu tion of that form of church government. The longer text was first known to scholars. Usher discovered a Latin version of the shorter form, and Vossius the Greek original of this version. Tattam found the Syriac translation in an Egyptian monastery, and Cureton edited it in 1845. Cureton s services in connection with Ignatius deserve the highest praise; and his Corpus Ignatianum contains almost all the evidence that can be brought to bear on the subject. The contest in regard to Ignatius s writings has been keen in various periods of the church s history; and since the Syriac version appeared, the subject has been discussed by a host of writers, among whom may be mentioned Bunsen, Baur, Dusterdieck, Denziger, Hilgen- feld, Lipsius, Bitschl, Merx, Nirschl, Zahn, and Newman. Poly carp was bishop of Smyrna. The principal part of the information we have in regard to him is derived from Irenaeus, and may be accepted with confidence. Irenaeus knew Polycarp personally, and remembered how Poly carp "related his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord." The apostles appointed Polycarp a bishop of the church in Smyrna, and he remained there a long time teaching the truth. In the time of Anicetus, Polycarp came to Rome, and showed a strong spirit of love and charity, which was fully reciprocated by the Roman bishop. They differed in regard to the celebration of the day of the passover, but their differences did not interfere with their love for each other. A special document describes the martyrdom of Polycarp. There are good reasons for doubting the minute accuracy of this work, but the main circumstances have the appearance of being true. A persecution had arisen in Smyrna against the Christians, and naturally a demand was made for Polycarp, the chief of the Christians. At first he fled, but finding that this was of no use, he allowed himself to be apprehended and brought back. He was led before the proconsul, and urged to swear by Caesar and revile Christ. " Eighty and six years," said Polycarp, " have I served Him, and He has done me no ill, and how can I blaspheme my King who has saved me 1 ?" The multitude wished the Asiarch to expose the bishop to the lions, but the Asiarch refused, as the time for lions was over. So the people gathered wood and lighted a fire. And Polycarp was placed in the fire, and ultimately also stabbed. The date of his martyrdom has been matter of keen discussion. Eusebius fixed it at 1G6 A.D. The Martyrium mentions that it took place in the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus. Recently Wadding- ton has tried to show that Quadratus was proconsul in 154-5, and Lipsius has based on this result the con clusion that Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155. This <late, however, is open to serious objections; and even AVaddington s reasons for placing the proconsulate of Quadratus in 154-5, are not of a satisfactory nature. The only writing that can be now attributed to Polycarp is a letter to the Philippians. This letter is mentioned by Irenaeus and by subsequent writers. Jerome mentions that it was read in the churches. It is a simple outpouring of ordinary Christian thought and feeling. The Tubingen School deny the genuineness of the epistle on internal evidence. Ritschl has tried to show that it is largely interpolated, and there are strong reasons for believing the thirteenth chapter an interpolation. Barnabas. There has come down to us a work called the Epistle of Barnabas. This work is unanimously ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St Paul, by early Christian writers. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes the letter seven times, and speaks of it as the work of the apostle Barnabas. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome mention it. The internal evidence is conclusive against its genuineness. The writer regards the Jews as entirely wrong in having practised the ceremonial law. He thinks that Moses never intended that the precepts of the law should be carried out literally. They were to be understood from the first spiritually. By this literal interpretation the Jews had forfeited all claim to the covenant. The covenant belongs only to Christians who obey the law in spirit. The writer applies this prin ciple to sacrifices, circumcision, and the Sabbath. It is difficult to imagine that Barnabas could have adopted such a mode of viewing the law. In all probability he adhered to some of the Jewish practices to the end of his days. Moreover, the writer commits such mistakes in relation to the Jewish ritual as no Jew would commit who had had practical experience of it. Some of the opinions in the letter, and the whole tone of thought indicate that the writer had strongly felt the influence of Alexandrian Judaistic speculation. Accordingly, some critics have maintained that it was written in Alexandria. There is no clue to a date ; but there are various indications which have been differently interpreted by different critics. Some, as Weizsacker, have assigned it to the reign of Vespasian ; others, as Wieseler, to the reign of Domitian ; but the great majority of critics assign it to the reign of Hadrian, some time between 119 and 126 A.D. The letter consists of two parts. The latter part is somewhat different in style and purport from the former, and, accordingly, doubts have been entertained as to its genuineness. But there is no good reason for doubt, and external testimony is in favour of it. The first five chapters were extant only in the Latin translation until Tischendorf discovered the entire Greek of the first part in the Codex Sinaticus. The letter is interesting, as throwing light upon a peculiar phase of theological speculation in the early church. Hernias. The Pastor of Hermas is one of the most interesting books of Christian antiquity. The name Hermas occurs several times in the work, and it was there fore natural for the ancients to suppose that this was the name of the author. The book at a very early period became widely known in the East, and was regarded as inspired. Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen speak of it and quote it as Scripture, and Eusebius uses somewhat similar language in regard to it. Origen asserts his belief that the author was the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans. The African Church held a different opinion in regard to it. Tertullian speaks slight ingly of it; and the story became current that it was written by a Hermas, who was brother to Pius, bishop of Rome from 140 to 155 A..D. It may be doubted whether the author has really given his name. The work is ficti tious in form, and there is no good reason for supposing that he has introduced any real characters into it. There is no clear indication of a date ; but various circumstances lead to the inference that it was written towards the end of the reign of Hadrian, or the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius. Internal evidence points strongly to Italy as the place in which it was written. The book is divided into three parts : visions, commandments, and similitudes. It was very popular with the ancient church, and deservedly so. It presents Christian truth in an attractive manner. Its tone is high and noble, and it breathes the spirit of the gospel of love. The name of Christ docs not occur in it, and as the references to the Son of God are few, some have characterised the book as strongly Judaistic. Indeed,
various heresies and heretical tendencies have been dis-