We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2020
Recent studies of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch have helpfully located seventeenth-century Ignatian scholarship in its ecclesial and political context. Of particular importance, these new works have demonstrated that seventeenth-century British analysis of the genuineness of Ignatius's letters coincided with debates about British ecclesial government and the English Civil War. This essay contributes to such studies by expanding the discussion in three ways. The first two ways extend the study of Ignatian reception backward from the seventeenth century. First, the article observes that the study of the middle recension (the earliest form of Ignatius's letters) can be found in late medieval English theological writings and manuscripts. Second, it addresses how, simultaneously, four Ignatian letters which record a correspondence between Ignatius, John the Elder, and the Virgin Mary were read in Britain. These letters highlight Ignatius's piety and apostolic links. Finally, this essay widens the scholarly narrative of seventeenth-century Ignatian studies by observing that seventeenth-century interpreters drew on late medieval citations of Ignatius and that they were concerned with Ignatius's piety as well as the interpretive puzzles in his letters.
1 For example Schoedel, William R., Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1–2Google Scholar; Ehrman, Bart D., ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library 24 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 1:210–211Google Scholar; Holmes, Michael W., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 171–172Google Scholar; and Hartog, Paul, “A Multi-Faceted Jewel: English Episcopacy, Ignatian Authenticity, and the Rise of Critical Patristic Scholarship,” in Defending the Faith: John Jewel and the Elizabethan Church, ed. Ransom, Angela, Gazal, Andre, and Bastow, Sarah (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2018), 263–283Google Scholar. I am grateful to Prof. Hartog for sending me an advance copy of his contribution.
2 de Quehen, Hugh, “Politics and Scholarship in the Ignatian Controversy,” Seventeenth Century 13, no. 1 (1998): 69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brent, Allen, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origins of Episcopacy (London: T and T Clark International, 2007), 1–13Google Scholar; Barnes, Timothy D., “The Date of Ignatius,” Expository Times 120, no. 3 (December 2008): 119–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cobb, L. Stephanie, “Neither ‘Pure Evangelic Manna’ nor ‘Tainted Scraps’: Reflections on the Study of Pseudo-Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers and Paul, ed. Still, Todd D. and Wilhite, David E. (London: Bloomsbury T and T Clark, 2017), 181–185Google Scholar.
3 Lincicum, David, “The Paratextual Invention of the Term ‘Apostolic Fathers,’” Journal of Theological Studies 66, no. 1 (April 2015): 139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rothschild, Clare K., New Essays on the Apostolic Fathers (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Ussher, James, The Judgement of Doctor Rainoldes (London: Downes, 1641)Google Scholar; Ussher, James, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae (Oxford: Hall, 1644)Google Scholar; and Milton, John, Of Prelatical Episcopacy (London: Underhill, 1641)Google Scholar
5 See especially de Quehen, “Politics and Scholarship,” 69–84.
6 For recent reception-historical studies of Ignatius, see Sergio Gerardo Americano, “Ignazio d'Antiochia nel ‘Pandette della Sacra Scrittura’ di Antioco di San Saba (CPG 7842–7844): Tradizione manoscritta,” Augustinianum 57, no. 1 (June 2017): 191–208; Sergio Gerardo Americano, “Ignazio d'Antiochia nel ‘Pandette della Sacra Scrittura’ di Antioco di San Saba (CPG 7842–7844): Testo critico e commento,” Augustinianum 57, no. 2 (December 2017): 541–567; Gilliam, Paul R., Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Matthew Kuhner, “Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Ephesians 19.1 and the Hidden Mysteries: A Trajectory of Interpretation from Origen to Thomas Aquinas,” Journal of Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (April 2017): 93–120.
7 Although any discussion of the Latin middle recension is indebted to Ussher's study, this section only reaps the results of Ussher's study to analyze how Ignatius was utilized in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Discussion of Ussher's work will follow in section 3.
8 Callus, Daniel A., “The Oxford Career of Robert Grosseteste,” Oxoniensia 10 (1945): 42–72Google Scholar.
9 For further biographical information, see McEvoy, James, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 3–48Google Scholar; McEvoy, James, Robert Grosseteste (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3–75Google Scholar; and Southern, Richard W., Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.
10 Thomson, S. Harrison, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste: Bishop of Lincoln, 1235–1253 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), 55–58Google Scholar.
11 The commentary on this portion of chapter 3 is found in Candice Taylor Hogan, “Robert Grosseteste, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Hierarchy: A Medieval Trinity; Including an Edition of Grosseteste's Translation of, and Commentary on, ‘De ecclesiastica hierarchia,’” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1991), 455–467.
12 See pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 2.3.6–7.
13 Hogan, “Robert Grosseteste, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Hierarchy,” 457: “Est enim eucharistia secundum beatum Ignacium caro salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passa quam benignitate Patre resuscitavit.”
14 The numbering of Ignatius's letters follows Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 254. In Ehrman's text, this section of Ignatius's letters is numbered as Smyrneans 7.1 (Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:302). The middle recension contains seven letters: Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Polycarp. Ehrman identifies the author of the middle recension as Ignatius and his discussions about the second-century letters revolve around the middle recension. On the authorship of Ignatius's letters, see Jonathon Lookadoo, The High Priest and the Temple: Metaphorical Depictions of Jesus in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 15–22. The long recension contains thirteen letters: Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary of Cassobola, Trallians, Magnesians, Tarsians, Philippians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Polycarp, Antiochenes, Hero, Ephesians, and Romans. Ehrman identifies the author of the long recension as pseudo-Ignatius. The text of the long recension can be found in J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, part 2, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 2nd ed. (London: MacMillan 1889), 3:125–273 (hereafter, citations of Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers all refer to the 3 volumes of part 2).
15 The long recension reads: “καταμάθɛτɛ οὖν τοὺς ἑτɛροδοξοῦντας, πῶς νομοθɛτοῦσιν ἄγνωστον ɛἶναι τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, πῶς ἄπιστον ἔχθραν μɛτ’ ἀλλήλων ἔχουσιν. ἀγάπης αὐτοῖς οὐ μέλɛι, τῶν προσδοκωμένων ἀλογοῦσι, τὰ παρόντα ὡς ἑστῶτα λογίζονται, τὰς ἐντολὰς παρορῶσιν, χῆραν καὶ ὀρφανὸν πɛριορῶσιν, θλιβόμɛνον διαπτύουσιν, δɛδɛμένον γɛλῶσιν.” The middle recension of this text is as follows: “καταμάθɛτɛ δὲ τοὺς ἑτɛροδοξοῦντας ɛἰς τὴν χάριν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ɛἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσαν, πῶς ἐναντίοι ɛἰσὶν τῇ γνώμῃ τοῦ θɛοῦ. πɛρὶ ἀγάπης οὐ μέλɛι αὐτοῖς, οὐ πɛρὶ χήρας, οὐ πɛρὶ ὀρφανοῦ, οὐ πɛρὶ θλιβομένου, οὐ πɛρὶ δɛδɛμένου ἢ λɛλυμένου, οὐ πɛρὶ πɛινῶντος ἢ διψῶντος. ɛὐχαριστίας καὶ προσɛυχῆς ἀπέχονται, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογɛῖν τὴν ɛὐχαριστίαν σάρκα ɛἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγɛιρɛν.”
16 On the manuscripts of the long recension, see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:109–134.
17 Grosseteste, quoted in Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, cxli: “Ita vehementer amavisse Christum, quod optavit etiam tradi malis punitionibus diaboli, ut ipso frueretur.”
18 The long recension reads: “καὶ κόλασις τοῦ διαβόλου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐρχέσθω, μόνον ἵνα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτύχω,” while the middle recension contains: “κακαὶ κολάσɛις τοῦ διαβόλου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐρχέσθωσαν, μόνον ἵνα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτύχω.”
19 For what follows, see Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, cxli–cxlii; and Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:76–79. See also Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Perthes, 1873), 550–552.
20 On Robert Grosseteste's knowledge of Greek and interest in the church fathers, see Lewis, Neil, “Robert Grosseteste and the Church Fathers,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, ed. Backus, Irena (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:197–229Google Scholar; and McEvoy, James, “Robert Grosseteste's Greek Scholarship: A Survey of Present Knowledge,” Franciscan Studies 56 (1998): 255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Thomson, Writings of Robert Grosseteste, 59–61. See also Funk, F. X., Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefen (Tübingen: Laupp, 1883), 143–144Google Scholar.
22 Thomson says that the manuscript is located in the Bibliothèque municipale and refers to it as Tours 247. Thomson, Writings of Robert Grosseteste, 61.
23 Tours 247, fol. 484: “Has epistolas transtulit de Greco in latinum Magister / Robert’ grossa testa linconiensis episcopus.”
24 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:235.
25 Southern, Robert Grosseteste, 311n27. Similarly, Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, 551.
26 On Wyclif's understanding of the Eucharist, see Penn, Stephen, “Wyclif and the Sacraments,” in A Companion to John Wyclif, ed. Levy, Ian C. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 249–272Google Scholar; and Levy, Ian C., John Wyclif's Theology of the Eucharist in Its Medieval Context (Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.
27 For a helpful distinction between real presence and transubstantiation, see Kenny, Anthony, Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 81–82Google Scholar.
28 Evans, G. R., John Wyclif: Myth and Reality (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2005), 186–187Google Scholar.
29 For additional philosophical arguments, see Kenny, Wyclif, 83–86.
30 Wyclif, John, “Sermo LXI,” in Iohannis Wyclif: Sermones, ed. Loserth, Iohann (London: Wyclif Society, 1888), 2:453–463Google Scholar. See also Evans, John Wyclif, 187.
31 Wyclif, John, Confessio Magistri Johannis Wycclyff, in Fasciculi zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, ed. Shirley, W. W. (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1858), 115–132Google Scholar.
32 The relevant passage runs as follows: “Primus est B. Ignatius apostolis contemporaneous, qui ab illis, et cum illis accepit a Domino sensum suum. Et recitate eum Lincolniensis super Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, Cap. 3. Sacramentum, inquit, vel eucharistia est corpus Christi.” Wyclif, Confessio Magistri Johannis Wycclyff, 126–127.
33 John Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton de ordine minorum, in Shirley, Fasciculi zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, 133–180. On the 1381 controversy between Wyclif and Tissington, see Evans, John Wyclif, 189–191.
34 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136: “Inter quos illis praecipue videtur esse credendum qui fidem immediate ab ipsis Apostolis didicerunt. Unde B. Ignatius martyr, qui fuit B. Johannis apostoli discipulus, qui supra pectus Domini in coena recubit, quid sit eucharistia, in epistola qua prius, tradere nititur.”
35 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136: “‘Considerate,’ inquit, ‘qualiter anthropomorphi, i.e. illi haeretici contrarii sententiae Dei, a communione et oratione sanctorum recedunt, propter non confiteri eucharistiam carnem esse salvatoris quam Pater sua benignitate resuscavit, contradicentes huic dono, perscrutantes moriuntur. Decens est,’ inquit, ‘a talibus recedere, et nec communiter nec seorsum cum eis loqui.’”
36 Ignatius writes (in Smyrneans 4.1) that he is guarding the Smyrneans “from wild beasts who are in human form” (ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἀνθρωπομόρφων; a bestiis anthropomorphiis).
37 Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; and Luke 22:15–20. See also 1 Cor. 11:23–25.
38 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 137.
39 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 151: “Unde B. Ignatius martyr, epistola sua III quam scripsit ad Ephesios.”
40 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 151: “‘Omnes,’ inquit, ‘vos convenitis in obedire episcopo et presbytero unum panem fragentes, qui est pharmacum antidotum eius quod est ad non mori.’”
41 The Greek and Latin middle recensions each include an infinitive at this point (ɛἰς τὸ ὑπακούɛιν; in obedire), while the long recension contains a participle (ὑπακούοντɛς; obedientes).
42 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 152: “‘Non,’ inquit, ‘delector pane corporali, sed panem Dei volo, eius qui est ex genere David, et potum volo sanguinem ipsius.’”
43 William Woodford, De causis condemnationis XVIII articulorum damnatorum Johannis Wyclif, in Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum, ed. E. Browne (London: Chiswell, 1690), 190–265.
44 Woodford, “De causis,” 191: “Sexta causa est, authoritas Ignatii martyris, qui fuit contemporaneous apostolorum, qui in epistola sua ad Romanos, loquens de sacramento eucharistiae, sic scribit: ‘Non,’ inquit, ‘delector pane corporali, sed panem Dei volo eius qui est ex genere David, et potum volo sanguinem ipsius.’ Ex quibus pater, quod sanctus Ignatius non voluit esse in sacramento panem corporalem, sed pane illum, qui est vere et identice corpus Christi.”
45 Woodford, “De causis,” 191.
46 Woodford, “De causis,” 195. One name that Woodford mentions to illustrate Wyclif's purported argument comes from Paul's letters: “panis quem frangimus.” See 1 Cor. 10:16.
47 Woodford, “De causis,” 195: “‘Considerate,’ inquit, ‘qualiter anthropomorphi a communione et oratione sanctorum recedunt, propter quod non habent confiteri eucharistiam carnem esse salvatoris.’”
48 See the references to Grosseteste's commentary on pseudo-Dionysius's De ecclesiastica hierarchia 3 in Wyclif, Confessio Magistri Johannis Wycclyff, 126–127; and Woodford, “De causis,” 191.
49 Tissington and Woodford both call him “Ignatius martyr.” Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136; and Woodford, “De causis,” 191.
50 The writings of pseudo-Dionysius and Ignatius are also found together in Caiensis 395 and Vaticanus 859 (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:111) and are published together in Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, Ignatii undecim epistolae (Paris: Higmannum and Hypolium, 1498).
51 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136 (“Ignatius martyr, qui fuit B. Johannis apostoli discipulus”); and Woodford, “De causis,” 195 (“Ignatius, discipulus Johannis apostoli”).
52 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, cxli–cxlii.
53 Thomas Smith, S. Ignatii epistolae genuinae (Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1709), praefatio, p. 5: “I was unable to fish out anything by investigating where it might then be found” (Ubi iam reperiendus sit, ne investigando quidem expiscari possum).
54 Ussher, In Polycarpianam epistolarum Ignatiarum syllogen annotationes (Oxford: Hall, 1644), 46: “Unum est verbum in Graeco; Latine, sapientificavit.” See also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:84. The Greek text of the middle recension reads “τόν . . . σοφίσαντα.”
55 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, cxlii: “Incus est instrumentum fabri; dicitur Anglice anfeld.” See also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:76.
56 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, cxli.
57 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136, 151.
58 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii et epistolae, cxli; and Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, 552. Lightfoot notes that Ussher's reference to “Magistrum Walteram Brome” is wrong. The copyist's name is Crome. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:83n2.
59 Funk, Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefen, 145.
60 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:81.
61 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:82–83. On Caiensis 395 and the Latin translation, see Pierre-Thomas Camelot, Ignace d'Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne: Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe, 4th ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1968), 16–17; and Richard B. Lewis, “Ignatius and the ‘Lord's Day,’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 6, no. 1 (1968): 45–47.
62 Twelve letters are written by Ignatius. One is written to Ignatius by Mary of Cassabola.
63 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:233–237; and Alistair C. Stewart, Ignatius of Antioch: The Letters (Yonkers, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2013), 255.
64 The “Ignatius” who authored the Latin correspondence between Ignatius, John, and Mary is a different forger from the “Ignatius” who compiled the long recension of Ignatius's letters in Greek. “Pseudo-Ignatius” has been used to describe the authors of both collections in order to avoid lengthy attributions in the text, such as “the forger/interpolator of the long recension” or “the author of the medieval Ignatian correspondence.”
65 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 3:11–12.
66 Tissington, Confessio Magistri Johannis Tyssyngton, 136; and Woodford, “De causis,” 195.
67 Ignatius's epistles are numbered in accordance with the Latin text in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 3:69–72 and the English translation in Stewart, Ignatius of Antioch, 255–257. Thus, epistle 1 refers to Ignatius to John 1, Epistle 2 designates Ignatius to John 2, epistle 3 is a reference to Ignatius to Mary, and epistle 4 denotes Mary to Ignatius. Hereafter, “epistle” is abbreviated “ep.”
68 Ignatius, Ep. 3: “Neophitum Johannisque tui discipulum.”
69 Ignatius, Ep. 1: “Nostrae novae religionis est magistra.”
70 Luke 1:52: “Exaltavit humiles.”
71 Ignatius, Ep. 1: “Humilibus quidem est devota et devotis devotius humiliatur.” It is also worth noting that Ignatius writes that Mary “is magnified by all” (omnibus magnificatur), while the Magnificat opens with Mary declaring, “My soul magnifies the Lord” (magnificat anima mea Dominum): Ignatius, Ep. 1; and Luke 1:46.
72 Ignatius, Ep. 2: “Deum deorum peperit.”
73 Ignatius, Ep. 3: “Christifera.”
74 Like Salome's report in ep. 1, Mary's reference to herself as “the humble servant of the Lord” (humilis ancilla Domini) draws from language in Luke 1:48. In the Lukan passage, Mary praises God “because he looked upon the humility of his servant” (quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae).
75 Stewart, Ignatius of Antioch, 255: “It is of no historical value except as an example of learned piety within the west.”
76 See also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:237–239.
77 John Whitgift, Tractate 8: Of Archbishops, Metropolitans, Bishops, Archdeacons, etc., in The Works of John Whitgift, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1852), 2:171.
78 The Greek long recension reads “τίμα . . . ἐπίσκοπον δὲ ὡς ἀρχιɛρέα θɛοῦ ɛἰκόνα φοροῦντα.”
79 Whitgift, “Tractate 8,” 304–305, cf. 428. For Whitgift's allusions to Eusebius and Jerome, see Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.36; and Jerome, De uiribus illustribus 16.
80 Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in John Keeble, ed., The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr. Richard Hooker (Oxford: Clarendon, 1820), 3:4. For an account of John Jewel's use of the long recension, see John E. Booty, John Jewel as Apologist of the Church of England (London: SPCK, 1963), 106–108; and Hartog, “Multi-Faceted Jewel,” 263–283.
81 Lancelot Andrewes, “Sermon 6,” in Ninety-Six Sermons, ed. J. P. Wilson, 2nd ed.(Oxford: Parker, 1878), 1:398–399. Jean-Louis Quantin rightly observes that the value Andrewes had found in pre-Reformation elements of the Church of England also had political potential for James I: Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 398.
82 For example, John Calvin notes the presence of Lenten regulations in Ignatius's letters and concludes: “Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius.” John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis (Geneva: Estienne, 1559) 1.13.29. See also Irena Backus, “Calvin and the Greek Fathers,” in Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late-Medieval and Reformation History, ed. Robert J. Bast and Andrew C. Gow (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 270.
83 See especially de Quehen, “Politics and Scholarship,” 69–84; and the literature cited in notes 1–3 of this essay.
84 John Milton, Of Reformation Touching Church Discipline (London: Underhill, 1641); Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy; John Milton, Animadversions upon the Remonstrants Defence against Smectymnuus (London: Underhill, 1641); John Milton, The Reason for Church Government Urg'd against Prelatry (London: Rothwell, 1641); and John Milton, An Apology against a Pamphlet (London: Rothwell, 1642).
85 William Jameson, The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy (Glasgow: Sanders, 1697), i.
86 Ussher, Judgement of Doctor Rainoldes.
87 Johannes Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii (Cambridge: Hayes, 1672).
88 William Wake, The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers (London: Sare, 1693). For a concise account of the renewal of patristic studies after the Restoration at Oxford, which was Wake's alma mater, see Jean-Louis Quantin, “The Fathers in Seventeenth-Century Anglican Theology,” in Backus, The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, 2:997–998.
89 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 9.
90 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 9. Milton's sentiment aptly embodies Quantin's conclusion that “there was no continuous line of deference to the Fathers in the Church of England.” Quantin, Church of England and Christian Antiquity, 397.
91 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 10.
92 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 11.
93 Ussher, Judgement of Doctor Rainoldes, 6–8. See similarly James Ussher, “The Original of Bishops and Metropolitans Laid Down,” in The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, ed. Charles R. Elrington (Dublin: Hodges, Smith and Co., 1864), 7:48–50.
94 Ussher, “Letter CXXXIX,” in Elrington, Whole Works, 15:419.
95 Ussher, “Letter CLXIII,” in Elrington, Whole Works, 15:482.
96 Ussher, “Letter CLXXX,” in Elrington, Whole Works, 15:542.
97 Ussher, “Letter CLXXXVI,” in Elrington, Whole Works, 15:559.
98 See also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:240n1; and Arthur Pierce Middleton, Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy (Leominster: Gracewing, 2001), 230–231.
99 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, xv: “Cum autem mecum considerarem, Anglos fuisse tres illos theologos circumspicere coepi, num forte adhuc in Anglia reperiri passent Ignatii exemplaria aliqua, ex quibus ille nostrorum codicum defectus suppleri posset.”
100 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, xv–xxvi.
101 Isaac Voss, Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii martyris (Amsterdam: Blaeu, 1646).
102 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, viii; and Ussher, Appendix ignatiana (London: Thomas, 1647), ii.
103 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, ix–xi, xiii–xiv.
104 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Pars Prior, 7–10.
105 For an incisive synopsis of Daillé's writings, see Middleton, Fathers and Anglicans, 232.
106 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Proemium, 21–24. While Pearson's entire book can be seen in some sense as a response to Jean Daillé, chapter 6 of the Proemium specifically summarizes and counters Daillé's arguments in De scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Anciocheni nominibus circumferuntur (Geneva: Antonius and De Tournes, 1666).
107 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Proemium, 24: “Ad Philadelpheos et ad Smyrnaeos et proprie ad Polycarpum.”
108 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Proemium, 24: “Quid clarius?”
109 Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae, vii–viii.
110 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Proemium, 24. Jerome's “proprie ad Polycarpum” corresponds to Eusebius's “ἰδίως τɛ τῷ ταῦτης προηγουμένῳ Πολυκάρπῳ.”
111 For a contrary view, see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:156–157.
112 Ignatius, Trallians 5.2: “τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰς τοποθɛσίας τὰς ἀγγɛλικὰς καὶ τὰς συστάσɛις τὰς ἀρχοντικὰς ὀρατά τɛ καὶ ἀόρατα”; “supercaelestia et loci positiones angelicas et constitutiones principatorias visibiliaque et invisibilia.”
113 Ussher, In Polycarpianam, 23.
114 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Pars Secunda, 140.
115 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 119.
116 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 121. Conversely, neither Thomas Elborowe (A Prospect of the Primitive Christianity [Westminster Hall: Grantham, 1668], 71) nor Wake (Genuine Epistles, 149) flinch at the translation or offer an explanatory note.
117 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 106.
118 Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Pars Secunda, 195–196.
119 Elborowe, Prospect, 43.
120 See also Snyder, Graydon F., “The Text and Syntax of Ignatius ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 20:2c,” Vigiliae Christianae 22, no. 1 (April 1968): 9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lookadoo, High Priest and the Temple, 163–165.
121 Ignatius, Philadelphians inscription: “ἥτις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ παράμονος”; “qui est gaudium aeternum et incoinquinatum.”
122 Elborowe, Prospect, 62.
123 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 178.
124 Gilliam, Ignatius of Antioch, 211–217.
125 Elsewhere, Milton draws attention to the multiplicity of voices among early Christian texts in order to show that they cannot be read in universal support of a doctrine: Milton, Animadversions, 31.
126 For example, Milton, Of Reformation, 5–6.
127 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 1.
128 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 2.
129 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 6. Milton employs a similar line of argument in Animadversions (16–17) against the liturgy that was used in the church.
130 Milton, Of Prelatical Episcopacy, 10.
131 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, i.
132 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 126. See similarly Milton, Animadversions, 30–32.
133 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 127, discussing Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.12–13.
134 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 127–128, discussing Justin, 2 Apologia 5.
135 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 128, discussing Justin, 1 Apologia 67.
136 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 128–131, discussing Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5.23–25.
137 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 131–132, discussing Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 2.23.6.
138 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 133.
139 Jameson, Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, 132.
140 Elborowe, Prospect, 20.
141 Elborowe, Prospect, 16: “The Life and Death of Holy Ignatius, Bishop of the Church of Antioch in Syria, Holy Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist.”
142 Elborowe, Prospect, 16–17. See Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:33–37; and Luke 9:46–48.
143 Elborowe, Prospect, 17.
144 Elborowe, Prospect, 18–19.
145 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 2.
146 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 49–50. John Chrysostom also spoke about Ignatius in the context of Ignatius's feast day in Antioch. The sermon has been translated into English in John Chrysostom, “On the Holy Martyr Ignatius,” in The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters Introduced, Translated, and Annotated, ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006), 101–117. See also Gilliam, Ignatius of Antioch, 189–221.
147 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 50.
148 Wake, Genuine Epistles, 40–56.
149 De Quehen, “Politics and Scholarship,” 69–84; and Brent, Ignatius of Antioch, 1–2.
150 Barnes, “Date of Ignatius,” 119–121.
151 Cobb, “Neither ‘Pure Evangelic Manna’ nor ‘Tainted Scraps,’” 186–187. See similarly Gilliam, Ignatius of Antioch, 5–7.
152 Ussher, In Polycarpianam; Funk, Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefen, 151–204; and Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 3:13–72.
