e also refers to the examples of
St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as
'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in
every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages
which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet
of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives
respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this
one sentence [41:9]:--

'Writing to the Smyrnaeans, he has employed expressions (taken) I
know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--

"And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after
the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him
([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,
feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,
'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asomaton]]; and immediately they
touched Him, and believed."'

It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of
this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the
Hebrews [42:1].

Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that
we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our
author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.
'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of
the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He
altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,
and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new
confirmation of the Tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic
writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this
result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be
hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His
Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares
the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And
he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is
the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to
conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?

From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the
Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the ques