There were many places of note in Syria far distant from Antioch;
and it was preposterous to propose that "any one" travelling to
that province should carry letters to its capital city. No one can
pretend to say that the whole, or even any considerable part of
Syria, was under the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for,
long after this period, the jurisdiction of a bishop did not
extend beyond the walls of the town in which he dwelt. If Ignatius
meant to have his letters taken to _Antioch_, why vaguely say that
they were to be carried to Syria? [24:1] Why not distinctly name
the place of their destination? It had long been the scene of his
pastoral labours; and it might have been expected that its very
designation would have been repeated by him with peculiar
interest. No good reason can be given why he should speak of
Syria, and not of Antioch, as the place to which his letters were
to be transmitted. Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance
associated with the request mentioned in the postscript to this
letter. If the Philippians, or Ignatius, had sent letters to
Polycarp addressed to the Church of Antioch, was it necessary for
them to say to him that they should be forwarded? Would not his
own common sense have directed him what to do? He was not surely
such a dotard that he required to be told how to dispose of these
Epistles.

If we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles,
we must infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to be
forwarded with the utmost expedition. A council was to be called
forthwith, and by it a messenger "fit to bear the name of God's
courier" [25:1] was to be chosen to carry them to the Syrian metropolis.
There are no such signs of haste or urgency indicated in the postscript
to Polycarp's Epistle. The letters of which he speaks could afford