rallian and Smyrnaean letters the writer deals
chiefly with Docetism, while in the Magnesian and
Philadelphian letters he seems to be attacking Judaism, yet
a nearer examination shows the two to be so closely
interwoven that they can only be regarded as different sides
of one and the same heresy.'

Not so Dr. Harnack. To him

'the identification of the Judaists and Gnostics in the
Ingnatian Epistles is quite inadmissible. Ignatius combats
the Doketists in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the
Trallians, and the Smyrnaeans, while in the Epistles to the
Magnesians and Philadelphians he warns against the
Ebionistic danger. In the last-named Epistle he warns
against other tendencies which threatened the unity of the
Church.'

In fact, it is this Epistle to the Philadelphians which, in his opinion,
has led scholars astray. No one he thinks would have misunderstood 'the
fact--that the Judaists in the Epistle to the Magnesians were certainly
not Doketists, and the Doketists described in the Epistles to the
Ephesians, Trallians, and Smyrnaeans were not Judaists--had the Epistles
of Ignatius come to us without the Epistle to the Philadelphians.' It
would be beyond the province of this Review to enter into an
examination of the arguments adduced on each side; it would also be an
injustice to the disputants to infer that each selects or presses what
tells most of his view, but certainly a calm and dispassionate
inspection of these arguments will lead most men to think Uhlhorn,
Lipsius, and Lightfoot more correct in their unanimous verdict, that but
one heresy is attacked in the Ignatian letters, than Hilgenfeld and
Harnack in their preference of two distinct heresies--Ebionism and
Docetism. This latter conclusion can only be reached by treating the
Letters of Ignatius as Hilgenfeld has treated St. Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians; the former is attained by critical methods defining the
Judaism and Gnosticism observable to be but web and woof of one and the
same fabric.

The very early date, and the consequent genuineness of these Epistles
are thus the legitimate conclusion from the study of the internal as
well as external evidences. That date is placed by the Bishop of Durham
between A. D. 100-118 in the time of Trajan. Wieseler had placed the
date of the martyrdom (upon which depends the date of the letters) as
early as A. D. 107, Harnack as late as A. D. 138; a