2. _The Genesis of Prelacy._
Jerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of the episcopate, when he tells us that it was set up with a view to prevent divisions in the Church. [62:1] These divisions were created chiefly by the Gnostics, who swarmed in some of the great cities of the empire towards the middle of the second century. About that time the president of the Presbytery was in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hope that he would thus be the better able to repress schism. The new system was inaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever since maintained the proud boast that it is the centre of ecclesiastical unity. From the Imperial city Episcopacy gradually radiated over all Christendom. The position a.s.sumed by Dr. Lightfoot--that it commenced in Jerusalem--is without any solid foundation. To support it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that James was the first bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament ignores this story, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of the "pillars," or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish capital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed to establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater plausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find a trace of the episcopate in either of the two great Christian Churches of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the close of the first century," says he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the former, there is no allusion to the episcopal office." [63:2] He might have said that, even after the middle of the second century, it did not exist either in Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the close of the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as distinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery." [63:3] "The first bishop of Alexandria," says he, "of whom any distinct incident is recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen," [63:4]
who flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the same place, that "at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number." [63:5]
Instead of a.s.serting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate was widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia Minor and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the date here mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was established ANYWHERE.
Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for he lived throughout the period of its original development; but he has taken care not to lift the veil which covers its mysterious commencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarp to undertake a journey to Rome when burthened with the weight of years; but he has left us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the presbyterian system was kept up in Smyrna long after the death of its aged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that "Irenaeus was probably the most learned Christian of his time;" [64:2] and it is pretty clear that he contributed much to promote the acceptance of the episcopal theory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine of the apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith was propagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops from the days of the apostles. To make out his case, he was necessitated to speak of the presidents of the presbyteries as bishops, [64:3] and to ignore the change which had meanwhile taken place in the ecclesiastical Const.i.tution. Subsequent writers followed in his wake, and thus it is that the beginnings of Episcopacy have been enveloped in so much obscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in Christendom, it is impossible to settle the order in which its early presiding pastors were arranged. "Come we to Rome," says Stillingfleet, "and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here Tertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter.
Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus, both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?" [65:1] The different lists preserved attest that there was no such continuous and h.o.m.ogeneous line of bishops as the doctrine of the apostolical succession implies.
When Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as having "received his appointment in Asia from apostles as bishop in the Church of Smyrna," [65:2] he makes a statement which, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates to endorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in his boyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christian minister,--just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1] as destined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy was introduced, its abettors tried to manufacture a little literary capital out of some such incident; but the allegation that Polycarp was ordained to the episcopal office by the apostles, is a fable that does not require refutation. Almost all of them were dead before he was born. [66:2]
CHAPTER V.
THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
If, as there is every reason to believe, the Ignatian Epistles are forgeries from beginning to end, various questions arise as to the time of their appearance, and the circ.u.mstances which prompted their fabrication. Their origin, like that of many other writings of the same description, cannot be satisfactorily explored; and we must in vain attempt a solution of all the objections which may be urged against almost any hypothesis framed to elucidate their history. It is, however, pretty clear that, in their original form, they first saw the light in the early part of the third century. About that time there was evidently something like a mania for the composition of such works,--as various spurious writings, attributed to Clemens Roma.n.u.s and others, abundantly testify. Their authors do not seem to have been aware of the impropriety of committing these pious frauds, and may even have imagined that they were thus doing G.o.d service. [67:1] Several circ.u.mstances suggest that Callistus--who became Bishop of Rome about A.D. 219--may, before his advancement to the episcopal chair, have had a hand in the preparation of these Ignatian Epistles. His history is remarkable. He was originally a slave, and in early life he is reported to have been the child of misfortune. He had at one time the care of a bank, in the management of which he did not prosper. He was at length banished to Sardinia, to labour there as a convict in the mines; and when released from servitude in that unhealthy island, he was brought under the notice of Victor, the Roman bishop. To his bounty he was, about this time, indebted for his support. [68:1] On the death of Victor, Callistus became a prime favourite with Zephyrinus, the succeeding bishop. By him he was put in charge of the cemetery of the Christians connected with the Catacombs; and he soon attained the most influential position among the Roman clergy. So great was his popularity, that, on the demise of his patron, he was himself unanimously chosen to the episcopal office in the chief city of the empire. Callistus was no ordinary man. He was a kind of original in his way. He possessed a considerable amount of literary culture. He took a prominent part in the current theological controversies,--and yet, if we are to believe Hippolytus, he could accommodate himself to the views of different schools of doctrine. He had great versatility of talent, restless activity, deep cunning, and much force of character. Hippolytus tells us that he was sadly given to intrigue, and so slippery in his movements that it was no easy matter to entangle him in a dilemma. It may have occurred to him that, in the peculiar position of the Church, the concoction of a series of letters, written in the name of an apostolic Father, and vigorously a.s.serting the claims of the bishops, would help much to strengthen the hands of the hierarchy. He might thus manage at the same time quietly to commend certain favourite views of doctrine, and aid the pretensions of the Roman chief pastor. But the business must be kept a profound secret; and the letters must, if possible, be so framed as not at once to awaken suspicion. If we carefully examine them, we shall find that they were well fitted to escape detection at the time when they were written.
The internal evidence warrants the conclusion that the Epistle to the Romans was the first produced. It came forth alone; and, if it crept into circulation originally in the Imperial city, it was not likely to provoke there any hostile criticism. It is occupied chiefly with giving expression to the personal feelings of the supposed writer in the prospect of martyrdom. It scarcely touches on the question of ecclesiastical regimen; and it closes by soliciting the prayers of the Roman brethren for "the Church which is in Syria." [69:1] "If," says Dr. Lightfoot, "Ignatius had not incidentally mentioned himself as the Bishop "of" or "from Syria," the letter to the Romans would have contained no indication of the existence of the episcopal office" [70:1]
Whilst observing this studied silence on the subject which above all others occupied his thoughts, the writer was craftily preparing the way for the more ready reception of the letters which were to follow. The Epistle to the Romans tacitly embodies their credentials. It slyly takes advantage of the connection of the name of Ignatius with Syria in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians; a.s.sumes that Syria is the eastern province; and represents Ignatius as a bishop from that part of the empire on his way to die at Rome. It does not venture to say that the Western capital had then a bishop of its own,--for the Epistle of Clemens, which was probably in many hands, and which ignored the episcopal office there--might thus have suggested doubts as to its genuineness; but it tells the sensational story of the journey of Ignatius in chains, from east to west, in the custody of what are called "ten leopards." This tale at the time was likely to be exceedingly popular. Ever since the rise of Montanism--which made its appearance about the time of the death of Polycarp--there had been an increasing tendency all over the Church to exaggerate the merits of martyrdom. This tendency reached its fullest development in the early part of the third century. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans exhibits it in the height of its folly. Ignatius proclaims his most earnest desire to be torn to pieces by the lions, and entreats the Romans not to interfere and deprive him of a privilege which he coveted so ardently. The words reported by Irenaeus as uttered by one of the martyrs of Lyons are adroitly appropriated by the pseudo-Ignatius as if spoken by himself; and, in an uncritical age, when the subject-matter of the communication was otherwise so much to the taste of the reader, the quotation helped to establish the credit of the Ignatian correspondence. Another portion of the letter was sure to be extremely acceptable to the Church of Rome--for here the writer is most lavish in his complimentary acknowledgements. That Church is described as "having the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of G.o.d, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, filled with the grace of G.o.d, without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain."
"The Epistle to the Romans," says Dr. Lightfoot, "had a wider popularity than the other letters of Ignatius, both early and late. It appears to have been circulated apart from them, sometimes alone." [71:1] It was put forth as a feeler, to discover how the public would be disposed to entertain such a correspondence; and, in case of its favourable reception, it was intended to open the way for additional Epistles.
It was cleverly contrived. It employed the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians as a kind of voucher for its authenticity, inasmuch as it is there stated that Ignatius had written a number of letters; and it contained little or nothing which any one in that age would have been disposed to controvert. The Christians of Rome had long enjoyed the reputation of a community enn.o.bled by the blood of martyrs, and they would be quite willing to believe that Ignatius had contributed to their celebrity by dying for the faith within their borders. It is very doubtful whether he really finished his career there: some ancient authorities attest that he suffered at Antioch; [72:1] and the fact that, in the fourth century, his grave was pointed out in that locality, apparently supports their testimony. [72:2] The account of his hurried removal as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of ten fierce soldiers--whilst he was permitted, as he pa.s.sed along, to hold something like a levee of his co-religionists at every stage of his journey--wears very much the appearance of an ill-constructed fiction. But the disciples at Rome about this period were willing to be credulous in such matters; and thus it was that this tale of martyrdom was permitted to pa.s.s unchallenged. In due time the author of the letters, as they appeared one after another, accomplished the design of their composition. The question of the const.i.tution of the Church had recently awakened much attention; and the threat of Victor to excommunicate the Christians of Asia Minor, because they ventured to differ from him as to the mode of celebrating the Paschal festival, had, no doubt, led to discussions relative to the claims of episcopal authority which, at Rome especially, were felt to be very inconvenient and uncomfortable. No one could well maintain that it had a scriptural warrant. The few who were acquainted with its history were aware that it was only a human arrangement of comparatively recent introduction; and yet a bishop who threatened with excommunication such as refused to submit to his mandates, could scarcely be expected to make such a confession.
Irenaeus had sanctioned its establishment; but, when Victor became so overbearing, he took the alarm, and told him plainly that those who presided over the Church of Rome before him were nothing but presbyters.
[73:1] This was rather an awkward disclosure; and it was felt by the friends of the new order that some voucher was required to help it in its hour of need, and to fortify its pretensions. The letters of an apostolic Father strongly a.s.serting its claims could not fail to give it encouragement. We can thus understand how at this crisis these Epistles were forthcoming. They were admirably calculated to quiet the public mind. They were comparatively short, so that they could be easily read; and they were quite to the point, for they taught that we are to "regard the bishop as the Lord Himself," and that "he presides after the likeness of G.o.d." [74:1] Who after all this could doubt the claims of Episcopacy? Should not the words of an apostolic Father put an end to all farther questionings?
Hippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much information in relation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit; but he speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot well reject his statements as dest.i.tute of foundation. His account of the general facts in the career of this Roman bishop obviously rest on a substratum of truth. As we read these Ignatian letters, it may occur to us that the real author sometimes betrays his ident.i.ty. Callistus had been originally a slave, and he here represents Ignatius as saying of himself, "I am a slave." [74:2] Callistus had been a convict, and more than once this Ignatius declares, "I am a convict." [74:3] May he not thus intend to remind his co-religionists at Rome that an ill.u.s.trious bishop and martyr had once been a slave and a convict like himself?
Callistus, when labouring in the mines of Sardinia, must have been well acquainted with ropes and hoists; and here Ignatius describes the Ephesians as "hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ," having faith as their "windla.s.s," and as "using for a rope the Holy Spirit." [74:4] Callistus had at one time been in charge of a bank; and Ignatius, in one of these Epistles, is made to say, "Let your works be your _deposits_, that you may receive your _a.s.sets_ due to you."
[75:1] Callistus also had charge of the Christian cemetery in the Roman Catacombs; and Ignatius here expresses himself as one familiar with graves and funerals. He speaks of a heretic as "being himself a bearer of a corpse," and of those inclined to Judaism "as tombstones and graves of the dead." [75:2] It is rather singular that, in these few short letters, we find so many expressions which point to Callistus as the writer. There are, however, other matters which warrant equally strong suspicions. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus was a Patripa.s.sian. "The Father," said he, "having taken human nature, deified it by uniting it to Himself, ... and so he said that the Father had suffered with the Son." [75:3] Hence Ignatius, in these Epistles, startles us by such expressions as "the blood of G.o.d," [75:4] and "the pa.s.sion of my G.o.d."
[75:5] Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared, as occasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Church by appearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided with Hippolytus, and sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it is that the theology taught in these letters is of a very equivocal character. Dr. Lightfoot has seized upon this fact as a reason that they are never quoted by Irenaeus. "The language approaching dangerously near to heresy might," says he, "have led him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal teaching." [76:1] A much better reason was that he had never heard of these letters; and yet their theology is exactly such a piebald production as might have been expected from Callistus.
It is not easy to understand how Dr. Lightfoot has brought himself to believe that these Ignatian Epistles were written in the beginning of the second century. "_Throughout the whole range of Christian literature_," says he, "no more uncompromising advocacy of the episcopate can be found than appears in these writings ... It is when a.s.serting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and respect that the language is _strained to the utmost_. The bishops established _in the farthest part of the world_ are in the counsels of Jesus Christ." [76:2] It is simply incredible that such a state of things could have existed six or seven years after the death of the Apostle John. All the extant writings for sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these letters. It is certain that they employ a terminology, and develop Church principles unknown before the beginning of the third century, and which were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may have been, has displayed no little art and address in their fabrication. From all that we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task. Like the false Decretals, these letters exerted much influence on the subsequent history of the Church. Cyprian, though he never mentions them, [77:1]
speedily caught their spirit. His a.s.sertion of episcopal authority is quite in the same style. Origen visited Rome shortly after they appeared; he is the first writer who recognises them; and it is worthy of note that, of the three quotations from them found in his works, two are from the Epistle to the Romans. It is quite within the range of possibility that evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they emanated from one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin.
They recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical dictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since inculcated. "It need hardly be remarked," says Dr. Lightfoot, "how subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct responsibility to G.o.d in Christ, is the _crushing despotism_ with which"
the language of these letters, "if taken literally, would invest the episcopal office." [77:2] And yet, having devoted nearly thirty years off and on to the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham maintains that we have here the genuine writings of an apostolic Father who was instructed by the inspired founders of the Christian Church!!
In this Review no notice is taken of the various forms of these Epistles. If they are all forgeries, it is not worth while to spend time in discussing the merits of the several editions.
APPENDICES.
I.
LETTER OF THE LATE DR. CURETON.
Immediately after the appearance of the second edition of _The Ancient Church_, a copy of it was sent to the late Rev. W. Cureton, D.D., Canon of Westminster--the well-known author of various publications relating to the Ignatian Epistles. It was considered only due to that distinguished scholar to call his attention to a work in which he was so prominently noticed, and in which various arguments were adduced to prove that all the letters he had edited are utterly spurious. In a short time that gentleman acknowledged the presentation of the volume in a most kind and courteous communication, which will be read with special interest by all who have studied the Ignatian controversy. I give the letter entire--just as it reached me. It was published several years ago, appended to my _Old Catholic Church_.
DEANS YARD, WESTMINSTER, _Sept._ 24, 1861.
DEAR SIR,--I beg to thank you very much for your kindness in sending me a valuable contribution to Ecclesiastical History in your book, _The Ancient Church_, which I found here upon my return to London two or three days ago. How much would it contribute to the promotion of charity and the advancement of the truth were all who combated the opinions and views of another to give him the means of seeing what was written fairly and openly, and not to endeavour to overthrow his arguments without his knowledge. This will indeed ever be the case when truth is sought for itself, and no personal feelings enter into the matter.
I have read your chapters on Ignatius, and you will perhaps hardly expect that I should subscribe to your views. It is now about twenty years since I first undertook this inquiry, and constantly have I been endeavouring to add some new light ever since. I once answered an opponent in my present brother canon, Dr. Wordsworth, but since that time I have never replied to any adverse views--but have only looked to see if I could find anything either to show that I was wrong or to strengthen my convictions that I was right. And I have found the wisdom of this, and have had the satisfaction of knowing that my ablest opponents, after having had more time to inquire and to make greater research, have of their own accord conformed to my views and written in their support.
I attach no very great importance to the Epistles of Ignatius. I shall not draw from them any dogma. I only look upon them as evidence of the time to certain facts, which indeed were amply established even without such evidence. I think that in such cases, we must look chiefly to the historical testimony of facts; and you will forgive me for saying that I think your arguments are based upon presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness--all of which, however valuable, must tumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice that Archbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simply because its style (not having been altered by the forger) was different from the rest. But you know he says there was more _historical_ evidence in its favour than for any of the rest. It thus becomes an argument in support of the Syriac text instead of against it. Can you explain how it happens that the Syriac text, found in the very language of Ignatius himself, and transcribed many hundreds of years before the Ignatian controversy was thought of, now it is discovered, should contain only the _three Epistles_ of the existence of which there is any historical evidence before the time of Eusebius, and that, although it may contain some things which you do not approve, still has rejected all the pa.s.sages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protested against? You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the Ignatian Epistles--he only rejected them in the form in which they were put forth by Ussher and Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac. So did Porson, as Bishop Kaye informed me--but he never denied that Ignatius had written letters--indeed, the very forgeries were a proof of true patterns which were falsified.
A great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused to accept the Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of the Syriac. But time will open. Believe me, yours faithfully,
WILLIAM CURETON.
THE REV. DR. KILLEN.
Some time after this letter was written, ecclesiastical literature sustained a severe loss in the death of its amiable and accomplished author. Though Dr. Cureton here expressed himself with due caution, his language is certainly not calculated to rea.s.sure the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles. One of their most learned editors in recent times--so far from speaking in a tone of confidence respecting them--here admits that he attached to them "no very great importance." Though he had spent twenty years chiefly in their ill.u.s.tration, he acknowledges that he was constantly endeavouring "to add some new light" for his guidance.
To him, therefore, the subject must have been still involved in much mystery.
It is noteworthy that, in the preceding letter, he has not been able to point out a solitary error in the statement of the claims of these Epistles as presented in _The Ancient Church_. He alleges, indeed, that the arguments employed are "based upon presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness;" he confesses that these proofs are "valuable;" but, though he contends that they must all "tumble to the around before one single fact," he has failed to produce the one single fact required for their overthrow.
Dr. Cureton had obviously not been previously aware that Dr. Bentley, the highest authority among British critics, had rejected the Ignatian Epistles. Had he been cognisant of that fact when he wrote the _Corpus Ignatianum_, he would have candidly announced it to his readers. The manner in which he here attempts to dispose of it is certainly not very satisfactory. He pleads that, though Bentley condemned as spurious the letters edited by Ussher and Vossius, he would not have p.r.o.nounced the same decision on the Syriac version recently discovered. Why not? This Syriac version is an edition of _the same Epistles_ in an abbreviated form. If Bentley denounced _the whole_ as a forgery, it seems to follow, by logical inference, that he would have p.r.o.nounced the same verdict on the half or the third part. Dr. Cureton is mistaken when he affirms in the preceding communication that his Syriac version has rejected "all the pa.s.sages" against which "the critics of the Ignatian controversy"
had protested. The very contrary has been demonstrated in _The Ancient Church_. A large number of the sentences which had provoked the most unsparing criticism are retained in the Curetonian edition. It is right to add that Archbishop Ussher more than "doubted" the Epistle to Polycarp. He discarded it altogether. Without hesitation he set it aside as spurious. Whilst he disliked its style, he felt that it wanted other marks of genuineness. When writing _The Ancient Church_--now nearly thirty years ago--I was disposed to think that the Ignatian Epistles had been manufactured at Antioch; but more mature consideration has led me to adopt the conclusion that they were concocted at Rome. They bear a strong resemblance to several other spurious works which appeared there; and the servile submission to episcopal authority which they so strenuously inculcate was first most offensively challenged by the chief pastor of the great Western bishopric. These Epistles tended much to promote the progress of ecclesiastical despotism.
Any one who studies the two chapters on the Ignatian Epistles in _The Ancient Church_, must see that what is there urged against them is something more than "presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness." It is shown that their anachronisms, historical blundering, and false doctrine clearly convict them of forgery.
II.
It has been deemed right to subjoin here a copy of the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans, as some readers may not have it at hand for consultation.
Various translations of this Epistle have been published. The following adheres pretty closely to that given by the Bishop of Durham:--
"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to her that has obtained mercy through the might of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ His only Son, to the Church which is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus Christ our G.o.d, to her that has the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans; being worthy of G.o.d, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ, and bearing the Father"s name, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, to those that are united both according to the flesh and spirit to every one of His commandments, being filled inseparably with the grace of G.o.d, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundance of happiness unblameably in Jesus Christ our G.o.d.
"1. Through prayer to G.o.d I have obtained the privilege of seeing your most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested, for I hope as a prisoner in Jesus Christ to salute you, if indeed it be the will of G.o.d that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the beginning has been well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal, that I may receive my inheritance without hindrance. For I am afraid of your love, lest it should be to me an injury; for it is easy for you to accomplish what you please, but it is difficult for me to attain to G.o.d, if ye spare me.
"2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to please G.o.d, as ye do please Him. For neither shall I ever have such an opportunity of attaining to G.o.d, nor can ye, if ye be silent, ever be ent.i.tled to the honour of a better work. For if ye are silent concerning me, I shall become G.o.d"s; but if ye love my body, I shall have my course again to run. Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be poured out a libation to G.o.d, while there is still an altar ready; that being gathered together in love ye may sing praise to the Father through Jesus Christ, that G.o.d has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east to the west. It is good to set from the world to G.o.d, that I may rise again to Him.
"3. Ye have never envied any one. Ye have taught others, and my desire is that those lessons shall hold good, which as teachers ye enjoin. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, so that I may not only say it, but also desire it; that I may not only be called a Christian, but really be found one. For if I shall be found so, then can I also be called one, and be faithful then, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothing visible is good: for our G.o.d, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed. The work is not of persuasiveness, but of greatness, whensoever it is hated by the world.