CONSUB STANTIA THE SON. 1vulgatæ. 43 vit. tas. 102 Sandius' arguments for the genuineness of the spurious ON THE absurd to doubt of Ignatius being their author," it was recklessly made, as his way is. Certainly if by the former unLITY OF doubted Epistles he means the seven mentioned by Eusebius, as they were published1 prior to the edition of Vossius, it is certainly true that there is a very great similarity of style between them and the other five. And what wonder? It was the judgment of Usshere (and the thing speaks for itself) that it was the same forger "who interpo2 incrusta- lated the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and increased them by adding as many more." Let any one, however, compare the seven Epistles, when the interpolated passages are taken 3 defæca- out3, as edited by Vossius, with the remaining five, and he will certainly admit, if he is able to judge of the case, that there is a very wide difference between the two, in respect both of style and of doctrine. In this one particular alone is there an apparent resemblance; in that the impostor, who patched together the five Epistles, employs sundry forms of construction, and expressions which are in familiar use in the genuine Ignatius;' but these too are so studiously affected by the impor- forger, and so thrust in out of place, that from this evidence alone the imposture may be detected". In the same place Sandius further argues in this way; "Origen, in his sixth Homily on St. Luke, quotes some words from the Epistle to the Philippians," (one, that is, of the five which we reject,) 6 auctori- "from which its genuineness is evident." But here the sophist writes with his usual shamelessness. The words of Origen [122] (in his sixth Homily on Luke) concerning Ignatius and his 7 eleganter. Epistle, are as follows; "I find it well remarked in a letter of a certain martyr,—I mean Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch next after Peter, and who, in a persecution, fought with beasts at Rome,—that 'the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this world."" Not a word is here said about the Epistle to the Philippians; whilst in that written to the Ephesians, (one of Eusebius' seven,) we now read as follows; ἔλαβε τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας, "the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this 4 tune. 5 sorex prodatur. tas. e Proleg. ad Epist. Ignat., c. 5. g Eleganter in cujusdam martyris dico, episcopum Antiochiæ post Petrum secundum, qui in persecutione Romæ pugnavit ad bestias, Principem sæculi hujus latuit virginitas Mariæ.— [vol. iii. p. 938.] b [19. p. 16.] BOOK II. CHAP. II. § 8. and interpolated Epistles of St. Ignatius; refuted. 103 world." Granted, that this sentence is repeated by the impostor who aped Ignatius in the spurious Epistle to the Philippians, what follows? In order, however, that the impos- IGNATIUS. ture of the author of this Epistle to the Philippians may be more clearly seen, even out of Origen himself, we must observe that the passage of Ignatius, which he cites, is indeed found, word for word, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, thus, "the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this world;" whereas in the Epistle to the Philippians it has been altered, a ridiculous apostrophe being made to the devil, thusi; "For many things are hidden from thee; the virginity of Mary, the strange birth," &c. But for the present leaving Sandius, a writer who deserves the detestation of all lovers of truth and fairness, let us return to the right reverend Pearson, who further sets forth his own judgment, and that of other very learned men, concerning the seven Epistles, known to Eusebius, as they existed in the Greek text prior to the edition of Vossius. His words are; "It has been correctly observed by very many persons, that even the seven most ancient and most genuine Epistles, in the Greek edition of that period," (i.e. before the edition of Vossius,) "were interpolated and corrupted; and this is plain from the passages adduced by the ancient fathers, which in that edition either do not appear, or are not correctly given, as well as from many other pas- [123] sages, which agree neither with antiquity, nor with the sentiments of Ignatius, and are inserted in a way that does not harmonize with the general tenour of the Epistles." The worthy prelate has also, throughout his very lucid work, proved on sure grounds, and to the satisfaction of all learned men, who are not biassed by excessive party-spirit, the genuineness of the seven Epistles of Ignatius, enumerated by Eusebius, as they have been edited by Vossius. Now if, out of these seven Epistles, (as they were published after the Medicean MS.,) agreeing as they do with the quotations made from them by Athanasius, Theodoret, Gelasius, and others of the ancients, Sandius can produce one single iota, which is repugnant to the Nicene creed, we will no longer refuse to admit, that Ignatius, an apostolic bishop, and most celebrated martyr, de 1 πολλὰ γάρ σε λανθάνει· ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας, ὁ παράδοξος τοκέτος, κ.τ.λ.—[8. γ. 115.] 10h The spurious Epistles, owner, apposed to Arianism. 7 le caused via de fremners of the impious heresy fans. This, lower, we re perfectly certain that he never' * be able to in We are not therefore by any means to account Ignatius an Aran, but Sandius, rather, an egregious ca.amniator of a most hoty father. It must also in the meantime be observed, that even in the spurious and interpolated Epistles of Ignatius, much as Sandins employs,) very many things are found diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy; and that the passages which have been brought forward by Sandins out of these same Epistles, will for the most part easily admit of a catholic construction; this it would not have been difficult had we now leisure for it) to demonstrate. But enough of Ignatius. And thus far have we heard the venerable triumvirate of apostolic writers confirming by their witness the creed of Nicæa. 48 [132] CHAPTER III. CLEMENT OF ROME AND POLYCARP INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED FROM THE 1. Or the writers of the apostolic age, besides those whose views we set forth in the preceding chapter, there remain in all two others, Clement' of Rome and Polycarp. I have [133] not mentioned them, hitherto, amongst the witnesses of the catholic tradition in the apostolic age, both because very few genuine remains of them are extant at this day, and because, even in those which exist, they touch sparingly and with less clearness on the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, as being intent upon other subjects. Since, however, the author of the Irenicum and Sandius have laid hold of this very circumstance as a handle for making false charges against them, (the one dragging forward these most holy fathers by force and against their will', into a sanctioning of the Socinian blasphemy, the other of the Arian,) I have thought it best, in • obtorto quasi collo אוויייין [For other testimonies to the Nivene faith from the genuine Epistles of St. Ignatius, see Grabe's notes on this chapter in the Appendix.] 1 Clement succeeded to the Roman see in the year 64 or 65, and occupied it to the year $1 or $3. Cave in Clem. -BOWYER. Photius' statement respecting St. Clement of Rome. 105 passing, to say a few words in opposition to their fallacies. I will first treat of Clement. n 2 BOOK II. CHAP. III. § 1-3. monitore. την. 2. Both the author of the Irenicum and Sandius (on the CLEM. R. suggestion of Petavius 1) observe, that Photius long ago sus- 1 Petavio pected him of heresy against the divinity of Christ. Photius, it would seem, in treating of Clement and his Epistles, after mentioning certain other things in his first Epistle as deserving of censure, remarks this also"; "That in calling our Lord Jesus Christ a high-priest and defender 2", he does not em- 2 πроσtáploy concerning Him those expressions which are of a higher TM. character and suitable to God; not however that he any where openly utters blasphemy against Him in these respects." But Photius, who is too severe a critic of the ancients, must himself bear the disgrace of his own rashness; and let no one blame me for expressing myself freely respecting a comparatively recent patriarch of Constantinople o, who, wantonly and without any cause, brings under the suspicion of heresy a Roman patriarch appointed by the Apostles themselves. Those persons, indeed, have always appeared to me very absurd, who, upon reading an epistle or short treatise of an [134] ancient writer, (and that perhaps the only undoubted relic of the author which has been preserved,) and finding there some doctrine of the Christian faith either altogether untouched, or not explained with sufficient clearness, (because the author, as his subject requires, is intent on some other point,) at once suspect him of some heresy or other. It is, however, enough for our purpose, that Clement nowhere in his Epistle, (on Photius' own admission,) blasphemes our Lord Christ. 3 nem. 3. Leaving Photius, then, I come to the author of the Irenicum, who thus argues against the received catholic doctrine3, from the first Epistle of Clement"; "It is cer- 3 traditiotain that Clement, upon examination, will be found to speak continually in such wise as to leave and attribute relinquat. to the Father a superiority 5 over Christ, by calling Him prærogaon all occasions Almighty God, the One God, the Crea- Christo. - ὅτι ἀρχιερέα καὶ προστάτην τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐξονομάζων, οὐδὲ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας ἀφῆκε περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνάς· οὐ μὴν οὐδ ̓ ἀπαρακαλύπτως αὐτὸν οὐδαμῆ ἐν τούτοις Bλaoonμeî.-Cod. cxxvi. 4 [Photius refers to S. Clem. ad Cor. i. § 36, 58; pp. 168, 181.] Elected patriarch in the year 858. 4 tivam præ ON THE CONSUB STANTIA 106 Testimonies from St. Clem. R. to the Consubstantiality; tor of all things, and God, &c. Whereas, on the other hand, he describes Christ, (as I have also remarked of Hermas,) in LITY OF such a manner only as to seem scarcely' to have acknowledged in Him any nature other than the human." What THE SON. 1 vix. 2 ἐξοχῇ. dum. he here alleges concerning the pre-eminence 2 of the Father being so religiously observed by Clement, does not excite in me the very slightest difficulty; inasmuch as I well know, and recollect, that the Apostle Paul also did the same, (though to my mind it is beyond all controversy, that he both believed and taught the true Godhead of the Son,) and that the same expressions were employed respecting God the Father by all the fathers, even by the Nicene fathers themselves, and by those who wrote subsequently to that council. The reason for this, indeed, we shall clearly explain below, in the fourth book, On the Subordination of the Son, &c. And now to those words of the anonymous writer, in which he says that Clement, as also Hermas, "describes Christ in such a manner only, as that he scarcely seems to have acknowledged in Him any nature [135] other than the human," I reply, that what he says of Hermas 3 splendi- is a glaring3 falsehood, as I have already most clearly proved. And as regards Clement, the heretic was cautious in adding that word "scarcely;" for it would have been too great effrontery to have said, that nothing could be found in the Epistle of Clement, to indicate that there was in Christ any other than a human nature. Of this kind, for instance, is the passage in which, describing the magnificent gifts (τὰ μεγαλεῖα τῶν Swpewv), which were of old bestowed by God on the family of Abraham on account of his faith, the author says"; "From him [came] our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh;" where by the limitation, "according to the flesh," it is plainly intimated, that there was in Christ another nature besides the human, or that flesh which He derived from Abraham. Besides, it is very unlikely that Clement should have entertained notions of Christ so mean and low, as to regard Him as a - mere man', when he dignifies Him with titles so exalted. For he styles Christ", "The effulgence of the Majesty of God (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ);” and soon after teaches us, that the superiority of Christ over all 49 θρωπο. 9 ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.—p. 72. [§ 32. p. 166.] r p. 82. [§ 36. p. 168.] |