It may, however, be objected that the conclusion of this letter clearly points to Ignatius of Antioch, inasmuch as Polycarp there speaks apparently of Syria, and of some one interested about Ignatius who might shortly visit that country. [405:2] Some critics of high name have maintained that this portion of the epistle is destitute of authority, and that it has been added by a later hand to countenance the Ignatian forgery. [405:3] But every candid and discriminating reader may see that the charge is destitute of foundation.  An Ignatian interpolator would not have so mismanaged his business.  He would not have framed an appendix which, as we shall presently shew, testifies against himself.  The passage to which such exception has been taken is unquestionably the true postscript of the letter, for it bears internal marks of genuineness.

In this postscript Polycarp says—­“What you know certainly both of Ignatius himself, and of those who are with him, communicate.” [405:4] Here is another proof that the Ignatius of Polycarp is not Ignatius of Antioch.  The Syrian pastor is said to have been hurried with the utmost expedition to Rome that he might be thrown to the beasts before the approaching termination of the public spectacles; and it is reported that when he reached the great city, he was forthwith consigned to martyrdom. [406:1] But, though letters had been meanwhile passing between Philippi and Smyrna, this Ignatius is understood to be still alive.  It would appear, too, that Zosimus and Rufus, previously named as his partners in tribulation, continued to be his companions.  Polycarp, therefore, must be speaking of the “patience” of confessors who were yet “in bonds,” [406:2] and not of a man who had already been devoured by the lions.

Other parts of this postscript are equally embarrassing to those who contend for the authority of the Ignatian Epistles.  Thus, Polycarp says—­“The Epistles of Ignatius which were sent to you by him, and whatever others we have by us, we have sent to you.” [406:3] If these words apply to Ignatius of Antioch, it follows that he must have written several letters to the Philippians; and yet it in now almost universally admitted that even the one extant epistle addressed to them in his name is an impudent fabrication.  Again, Polycarp states—­“Ye have written to me, both ye and Ignatius, that when any one goes to Syria, he can carry my letters to you.” [406:4] But no such suggestion is to be found, either in the Syriac version of the Three Epistles, or in the larger edition known to Eusebius.  Could we desire clearer proof that Polycarp must here be speaking of another Ignatius, and another correspondence?