and, after the death of that writer, a fabricator might put them into the mouth of whomsoever he pleased without any special danger of detection.  The Treatise against Heresies obtained extensive circulation; and as it animadverted on errors which had been promulgated in Antioch, [401:1] it, no doubt, soon found its way into the Syrian capital. [401:2] But who can believe that Irenaeus describes Ignatius, when he speaks of “one of our people?” The martyr was not such an insignificant personage that he could be thus ignored.  He was one of the most eminent Christians of his age—­the companion of apostles—­and the presiding minister of one of the most influential Churches in the world.  Irenaeus is obviously alluding to some disciple who occupied a very different position.  He is speaking, not of what the martyr wrote, but of what he said—­not of his letters, but of his words.  Any reader who considers the situation of Irenaeus a few years before he published this treatise, can have no difficulty in understanding the reference.  He had witnessed at Lyons one of the most terrible persecutions the disciples ever had endured; and, in the letter to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, he had graphically described its horrors. [401:3] He there tells how his brethren had been condemned to be thrown to wild beasts, and he records with simplicity and pathos the constancy with which they suffered.  But in such an epistle he could not notice every case which had come under his observation, and he here mentions a new instance of the Christian courage of some believer unknown to fame, when he states—­“one of our people when condemned to the beasts, said, ’As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.’”

The Treatise against Heresies supplies the clearest evidence that Irenaeus was quite ignorant of the existence of the Ignatian epistles.  These letters contain pointed references to the errorists of the early Church, and had they been known to the pastor of Lyons, he could have brought them to bear with most damaging effect against the heretics he assailed.  Ignatius was no ordinary witness, for he had heard the truth from the lips of the apostles; he had spent a long life in the society of the primitive disciples; and he filled one of the most responsible stations that a Christian minister could occupy.  The heretics boldly affirmed that they had tradition on their side, [402:1] and therefore the testimony of Ignatius, as of an individual who had received tradition at the fountain-head, would have been regarded by Irenaeus as all-important.  And the author of the Treatise against Heresies was not slow to employ such evidence when it was in any way available.  He plies his antagonists with the testimony of Clement of Rome, [402:2] of Polycarp [402:3] of Papias, [402:4] and of Justin Martyr. [402:5] But throughout the five books of his discussion he never adduces any of the words of the pastor of Antioch.  He never throws out any hint from which we can infer that he was aware of the existence of his Epistles. [402:6] He never even mentions his name.  Could we desire more convincing proof that he had never heard of the Ignatian correspondence?