As we continue in our analysis of the genuine works of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD), we focus this week on the Roman Catholic claim that Roman Primacy can be found in his letters. In this series we have been assessing the claims of Mr. Joshua T. Charles, a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because Ignatius of Antioch “red pilled” him into the truth. Mr. Charles, repeatedly claims to have read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, finding Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” He was particularly surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point,” which “was apparent in just seven short letters.”

Of the 10 points he listed, we have covered five so far — the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in Part 2, and the New Testament priesthood, Episcopal Succession and Episcopal Authority in Part 3. As we demonstrated last week, because of Mr. Charles’ approach he finds more in Ignatius than Ignatius actually wrote, and indeed much more than even Mr. Charles bargained for. He claimed that Ignatius described a New Testament priesthood composed “primarily” of bishops based on Luke 10:16 — “He who hears you, hears me” — but we found that Mr. Charles had relied on the longer Greek recension of Ignatius’ letters, a recension the Catholic Encyclopedia denies to be authentic. Only the shorter recension is considered genuine, and those genuine letters do not apply Luke 10:16 to the Apostles. In fact, Luke 10:16 was spoken not to the Twelve but to the Seventy. Thus, anyone who claims to have found a succession of apostolic priests based on Luke 10:16 has completely misunderstood the verse, and anyone who claims to have found that construct in Ignatius is reading something he did not write. In fact, if we were to take Mr. Charles’ approach seriously, we would have found in the longer recension not only an unending line of priests that succeeded from the Seventy, but also an unending line of priests that succeeded from the Seven (Acts 6:1–8), since Ignatius is quite clear that he believed the Deacons had been “entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (to the Magnesians 6) and “the mysteries of Jesus Christ” (to the Trallians 2). And Jesus’ ministry is both priestly and prophetic.

This week we continue with the eighth point Mr. Charles found in Ignatius:

8. The Church of Rome has greater authority than other churches;

Mr. Charles makes his argument for Roman Primacy from Ignatius under the heading The Roman Finale, the 10th entry in his Becoming Catholic series, the fifth on the topic of Ignatius. In that entry, he writes,

Ignatius of Antioch had an exceptionally high view of Church authority, and the obedience owed to the hierarchical priesthood by lay Christians. This trend continues in his Epistle to the Romans. What is most important about this epistle is that Ignatius speaks to the Roman church in ways he never speaks to any of the other churches.

As we demonstrated last week, however, if we are to use the formula “Ignatius speaks to X in ways he never speaks to Y” or “Ignatius says of X what he never says of Y,” we shall entangle ourselves in a knot of superlatives from which we cannot be extracted. Ignatius said “deacons …  are entrusted with the ministry ” (to the Magnesians, 6) and “the mysteries of Jesus Christ” (to the Trallians 2). But he never says that of “the bishops.” What are we to conclude from this? That the deacons are our priests and that Jesus had entrusted His perpetual sacrificial ministry to an infallible line of successors from the Deacons? And why not? After all, when the Twelve were all present in Jerusalem (Acts 6:2), it was not Peter, but Stephen, who had the leaders of the synagogue tangled in knots:

Then there arose certain of the synagogue  … disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (Acts 6:9-10)

What else can we conclude then? Ignatius spoke of Deacons in a way that he never spoke of Bishops. See? Diaconal succession.

The Roman Primacy Premise

“If Ignatius addresses X in a different way than he addresses Y it is because he thought X was more special than Y” is in fact a very silly, and easily falsifiable syllogism, but it is the very silliness upon which Mr. Charles constructs his argument for Roman Primacy from Ignatius. We shall interact with his claims, one by one, which for convenience we have enumerated, below. But as we progress through his arguments, remember the Roman Premise: “If Ignatius speaks to [X] in ways he never speaks to [Y] … .” Using that premise alone we shall establish the primacy of every church in Asia Minor.

1. Ignatius’ greeting to the Roman church is easily the longest greeting of any of his letters.

Until we read Mr. Charles, we were not aware that word counts were an indication of primacy. Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians is the longest letter he wrote (2,808 words in English, a thousand more than he wrote to Rome). And it is not the letter to Rome, but to Polycarp, that boasts the longest conclusion (183 words in English vs. 128 to Rome). What are we to make of these except that Ephesus and Smyrna have greater claims to primacy than Rome? After all, based on a standard Mr. Charles has proposed, Ignatius speaks to these churches in ways he does not speak to the others. The longer the letter, or the longer the conclusion, the greater the primacy. And why not? Higher word counts indicate primacy. Mr. Charles insists on it.

2. In [his letter to the Romans], he says several things about the Roman church that he doesn’t say about any other. For example, He says she is “enlightened” by God’s will.

The patient reader is invited to consider this statement from Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church … which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ…” (To the Romans, Greeting)

What are we to make of this? Rome is “enlightened” by God’s will, and Ignatius bestows such praise on no other church. According to the same letter, God’s will is defined as “all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ.” But as Ignatius continues in his letter, he argues that their “love” is the very problem, imploring them to act according to their “enlightened” knowledge, and to stop hating him by trying to prevent his martyrdom:

“For I am afraid of your love, lest it should do me an injury … If I shall suffer [execution], you have wished [well] to me; but if I am rejected [by the executioner], you have hated me.” (To the Romans, 1 & 8)

It is at this point that we wonder if Mr. Charles has abandoned both the shorter and the longer recensions altogether and has begun to read from his own imaginary recension. Consider the following statements by Ignatius in his genuine letters to other churches about how “worthy” they are:

“He … has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.” (to the Ephesians, 1)

“your justly renowned presbytery [is] worthy of God.” (to the Ephesians, 4)

“to the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia, beloved of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, elect, and worthy of God.” (to the Trallians, greeting)

“… to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God.” (to the Smyrnæans, greeting)

“Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy.” (to the Smyrnæans, 9)

What can this mean except that Mr. Charles has not really read Ignatius’ letters? He claimed “worthy” is a term Ignatius “applies to no other church” than Rome, and yet it is plainly obvious to any reader that the claim is false.

And while it may indeed be true that Ignatius’ describes only Rome as honorable, he describes only Ephesus as “most happy,” and then rubs that fact in the face the Romans! Aside from the Ephesians, no other church is considered “most happy” at all, and Ignatius is more than happy to tell it to the Romans:

“to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy” (to the Ephesians, greeting)

“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy” (to the Ephesians, 12)

“the Ephesians, who are deservedly most happy.” (to the Romans, 10)

Why did Ephesus deserve to be “most happy,” but Rome did not? Was Ignatius trying to send a special message to Rome about the primacy of the Ephesian church? What else could he possibly mean? We have every confidence that Mr. Charles will soon be converting to the One, Happy, Apostolic Ephesian Catholic Church, since Ignatius spoke of that church in ways that he spoke to no other.

Or, barring that, perhaps Mr. Charles will learn that Ignatius’ combination of magnanimity and extravagance was just a nice way of talking to people that he loved, not a hidden message of Ephesian primacy.

It is remarkable that in all of his studies of “tens of thousands of pages” of early Church Fathers, Mr. Charles did not come across Irenæus (189 AD) who credits the founding of the church at Rome to both Apostles. Irenæus testifies of this explicitly three times:

“Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book 3.1.1)

“the universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book 3.3.2)

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book 3.3.3)

What is more, Clement of Rome (c. 60 AD) described Peter and Paul together as “the greatest and most righteous pillars (στύλοι)” of the Church (to the Corinthians, 5), and Pope Leo (c. 460 AD) claimed that Peter and Paul had built the church in Rome together:

“These [Peter and Paul] are your holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave you claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built you under much better and happier auspices (multoque felicius condiderunt) than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of your walls were laid:” (Sermon 82, 1 [PG 54, 422])

Here Leo has likened the founders of the Roman church to the original founders of the city, Remus and Romulus, identifying two contrasting pairs that founded and built Rome: first Remus and Romulus, then Peter and Paul. While he acknowledges that Peter got to Rome first, Leo immediately turns his attention to Paul’s arrival in order to maintain the rubric of their collaboration:  “You [Peter] carried the trophy of Christ’s cross into the citadel of Rome,” and “Thither came also your blessed brother-Apostle Paul [who] was associated with you” there (Sermon 82, 5-6). “Condiderunt” may be reasonably translated either as “built you” or “founded you,” but it is safe to say that Pope Leo either believed Peter and Paul had co-founded the Church at Rome, or barring that, he had Paul co-building the Church with Peter. And since Paul would never “build on another man’s foundation,” Leo obviously believed Paul had co-founded the Church there, just as Irenæus insisted.

Mr. Charles may believe that Paul did not found and did not build the church at Rome, and that Paul avoided preaching in Rome “lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20). But Pope Leo did not believe that. Leo in fact seems quite sure that Paul did what Mr. Charles thinks he did not.

Now, we have no “dog in this fight,” for it matters little to us where and when Peter and Paul ministered, so long as their writings have come down to us. But their whereabouts and whenabouts matter very much to Mr. Charles who seeks to establish from Ignatius ancient evidence of Solus Petrus. But to do that he must disregard the great witnesses who claimed that Peter and Paul were “the greatest pillars” of the Church (Clement), and “layed the foundations” of the Church in Rome (Irenæus) and “built” or “founded” the Roman church better than Remus and Romulus laid the city’s foundations (Leo). These great men — early Church Fathers and popes — think differently than Mr. Charles. Ignoring all this, Mr. Charles claims to have “the universal testimony of the Church Fathers” on his side, and based on that, “we must necessarily conclude that, at least as far as Ignatius knew, Peter must have been its [only] founder.”

Lest we miss the main attraction, let us aggregate the fullness of the injury Mr. Charles has inflicted upon Ignatius. Mr. Charles alleged that Ignatius used “the biblical model” of always listing Peter first, but there is no such “biblical model.” He said Paul avoided preaching the gospel in Rome because he did not want to build upon Peter’s foundation, but Paul very much desired to preach the gospel in Rome and had every plan to do so. Mr. Charles claimed that “the universal testimony of the Church Fathers” was that Peter founded and built the Roman church without Paul, yet the collective testimony of Clement, Irenæus and Leo either suggests or explicitly claims that they founded it and built it together. Based on evidence available to anyone with a modicum of curiosity, Mr. Charles is very, very, wrong here — actually, factually wrong — and yet he insists that we must interpret Ignatius through that flawed lens:

“[W]e must necessarily conclude that, at least as far as Ignatius knew, Peter must have been its [the Roman church’s] founder.”

To this we respond that the reader must be very, very cautious when reading Joshua T. Charles. His desire is to convince the gullible and the naïve with false claims of “the biblical model” and “universal testimony of the Fathers” in the hopes that the incurious Protestant is overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of his claims. This is the method he uses to force Ignatius to say what he did not say, the Church Fathers to say “universally” what they did not “universally” say, the Scriptures to say what they do not say, in order to convince the foolish.

On second thought, that might be giving Mr. Charles too much credit. In truth, he has proposed nothing more than any other Roman Catholic apologist has already proposed. What he has done here rather is simply to regurgitate the same fiction and mythology he has ingested from other Roman apologists, and has done so without the courtesy of examining them before regurgitating them.

The Roman Fiction

To that end, Mr. Charles’ Roman Finale fails to impress. As proof of Roman Primacy in Ignatius, he claimed that “Ignatius speaks to the Roman church in ways he never speaks to any of the other churches.” Several of Mr. Charles’ claims are plainly false (e.g., both Rome and Ephesus are said to know God’s will, not Rome only; both Rome and Trallus are described as “holy,” not just Rome). And to the degree that Ignatius addresses Rome differently than he addresses the other churches, it is also true that he lavishes superlatives upon the other churches in ways that he never lavishes them upon Rome.

Mr. Charles claimed that the introduction to Ignatius’ letter to the Romans was longer than any other letter. True. But his longest letter was to Ephesus, not to Rome, and his longest conclusion was to Smyrna, not to Rome.

Mr. Charles claimed that Ignatius said Rome alone was “enlightened” by God’s will. True. But Ignatius also said Rome was praying incorrectly, taking the Devil’s side, while Ephesus was praying correctly. So while Rome was “enlightened” by God’s will, Ephesus was actually “living in accordance with God’s will” (To the Ephesians, 8), something he said to no other church!

Mr. Charles claimed that Rome is the only church Ignatius described as “‘presiding’ anywhere.” That is not true. The bishop of Magnesia was said to preside in the place of God, and its presbyters in the place of the apostles, something he says of no other church!

Mr. Charles claimed that Ignatius used terms like “worthy” and “honorable” to describe Rome, unlike any other church. But Ignatius said the Ephesians, Trallians and Smrynæans were all “worthy.” It is true that he used “honourable” for Rome alone, but it is also true that only the Ephesians were “deservedly most happy,” a description he uses for no other church!

Mr. Charles claimed only the church of Rome was “’named from’ both Christ and the Father” in Ignatius’ letters. Yet Ignatius uses the names of “both Christ and the Father” in his formal addresses both to the Philadelphians and to the Smyrnæans.

He continued on this theme, claiming the “unique power” or “unique grace” of the praying Roman church. Yet Ignatius’ actually rebukes the Roman church for siding with the Devil in its prayers while praising the Philadelphians, Ephesians and Smyrnæans not only for praying rightly, but for praying fruitfully on his behalf and on behalf of the church of Antioch.

He claimed Rome was a uniquely teaching church because Ignatius said they had “taught others.” Yet Ignatius “instructed” the Smyrnæans and wrote that it was good for “other men” to be instructed by the Ephesians.

Because Ignatius said the Roman church “envies no other church,” Mr. Charles inferred a certain Roman “preëminence” in Ignatius’ mind. And yet the Ephesians had done their works “perfectly,” something Ignatius says of no other church!

What is more, Mr. Charles claimed that Ignatius had used the “biblical model” of always listing Peter first, but Peter is not always listed first in the Bible. He claimed that Paul desired to preach the Gospel anywhere else but Rome, and yet Paul clearly desired to preach the Gospel in Rome. He claimed the early Church Fathers universally affirmed that Peter alone had founded the church in Rome, and yet Clement of Rome, Irenæus and Leo claimed that Peter and Paul “were the greatest pillars,” and had laid its foundations and built it together. Based on egregious falsehood, Mr. Charles assumed therefore that “we must necessarily conclude that” Ignatius must have believed that Peter had founded the Church in Rome alone. None of his arguments can carry the weight of the Roman Primacy that he heaps upon them.

The Ignatian Magnanimity

Taking Mr. Charles’ premise at face value — “If Ignatius addresses X in a different way than he addresses Y it is because he thought X was more special than Y” — we have turned it back on him to prove the primacy of every other church to which he wrote. Only the Ephesians are “deservedly most happy.” Only the Magnesians “preside in the place of God.” Only the Trallians are called “the holy church.” Only the Philadelphians are doubly “established.” Only the Smyrnæns have an “immoveable faith” and a bishop who is described as an “immoveable rock.” Applying Mr. Charles’ premise equitably, we must conclude that Ignatius thought every church was more special than every other church, and that every church must have in some way held the primacy over the others. And if every church had the primacy, then no church did. In truth, Ignatius was simply magnanimous, and spoke highly, uniquely, charitably and superlatively of every church in one way or another. What is more, even some of the “uniquely” Roman superlatives Mr. Charles has harvested from Ignatius’ letter to Rome, are actually lavished upon the other churches in his other letters. Rome, as it turns out, was no more special in Ignatius’ mind than any other church. And therefore, there is no “Roman Finale” in Ignatius’ letters.

Adding fallacy to falsehood and fabrication, Mr. Charles thinks to turn Ignatius into a purveyor of Roman primacy. But if he must use lies, falsehoods, errors and fallacy to make his case, we can dismiss his nonsense, and move on to his next “point.”