writings for sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom
of Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these letters. It
is certain that they employ a terminology, and develop Church
principles unknown before the beginning of the third century, and
which were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may have
been, has displayed no little art and address in their fabrication.
From all that we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task.
Like the false Decretals, these letters exerted much influence on
the subsequent history of the Church. Cyprian, though he never
mentions them, [77:1] speedily caught their spirit. His assertion
of episcopal authority is quite in the same style. Origen visited
Rome shortly after they appeared; he is the first writer who
recognises them; and it is worthy of note that, of the three
quotations from them found in his works, two are from the Epistle
to the Romans. It is quite within the range of possibility that
evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they emanated from
one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin. They
recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical
dictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since
inculcated. "It need hardly be remarked," says Dr. Lightfoot,
"how subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation
of individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct
responsibility to God in Christ, is the _crushing despotism_ with
which" the language of these letters, "if taken literally, would
invest the episcopal office." [77:2] And yet, having devoted
nearly thirty years off and on to the study of these Epistles,
the Bishop of Durham maintains that we have here the genuine
writings of an apostolic Father who was instructed by the inspired
founders of the Christian Church!!