apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

244 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
to Polycarp*. He failed to perceive that Jerome, having
no direct
knowledge of the Ignatian Epistles, went wrong from sheer ignorance.
The objections from the internal character of the epistle, which Ussher
quotes from Vedelius {App. Ign. I.e.), have no force; and indeed the
Epistle to Polycarp, being substantially the same in all the three recensions,
is the best standard and the safest test of the style of S. Ignatius.
This part of Ussher's theory was almost universally rejected, as it deserved
to be; but his main argument was irrefragable, and those who
Recension have beaten
have since attempted to reinstate the Long
their heads against a stone wall.
As yet however the original Greek of the Middle Recension was not
forthcoming. Ussher had heard of a MS in the Medicean Library^ at
'
was also drawn into this controversy : [misprinted Aiyj*!};] esse,' a reference to
^
Pearson, in refuting Ussher's objections
and Ussher and Pearson each endeamarks,
[Vind. Ign. p. 50 sq), justly revoured
in accordance with his owti theory
'Neque enim Hieronymum hie to find some reason in the intrinsic contents
imprimis spectandum esse puto, neque
of the epistle why the end should
Eusebium ex Hieronymo interpreter, be omitted (Ussher p. cxxviii, Pearson
sed, uti par est, Hieronymum ex Eusebio p. 59).
The simple solution seems to
ex quo sua transtulit.' He shows conclusively
be that the Greek MS which the trans-
that Eusebius speaks of seven lator used was defective here, probably
epistles ; but he is less happy in his by the loss of a leaf. The Latin Version
attempt to impose the same meaning on
elsewhere (e.g. in the superscription
Jerome. This he does by means of a of this Epistle to Polycarp) exhibits
parenthesis a solution which Casaubon traces of indistinctness or mutilation in
had suggested
— 'Scripsit...ad Smyrnaeos copy from which it was made. Thus
(et proprie ad Polycarpum commendans the fact has no bearing on this controversy.
illi Antiochensem ecclesiam) in qua et
de evangelic etc' Ussher had laid some
^
Ussher was probably put on the scent
stress on the fact that Honorius of Augustodunum
of the Medicean MS by the Ignatian
(dc Script. Eccl. 17, Migne's quotations in Turrianus whom he men-
Patrol. CLXXII. p. 199) omits all mention
tions. I have observed the following
of the Epistle to Polycarp. To this quotations from the Medicean MS in this
Pearson replies that Honorius is no independent
writer; Adv. Magd. Cent. pro Can. Apost.
or trastworthy authority, as he (Coloniae 1573) iv. 5 (p. 433) 'Credite
derives all his information from Jerome in dilectione' from Philad. 9; ib. iv. 7
and very frequently perverts or misunderstands
(p. 442) 'Sic fides est avar^iji'^evs rj/xuv...
him (p. 54). On the other hand Dilectio vero est odbs t) dvacpipovaa els
he quotes Nicephorus {H. E. iii.
19), de6v\ from Ephes. 9. This latter quotation
who rightly interprets Eusebius, koI
is given likewise in Dogmat. de
X/j-upvaiois dWrjv Staxaparret, Kal avri^ Justif. fol. 38 a (Romae 1557). Va.Adv.
5i idiq. Tip wpo^dpu} ravTTjs UoKvKapTnp Magd. Cent. etc. ii. 10 (p. 203) the MS is
eripav iw^ffreWe. The fact that the mentioned by name ;
Hoc solum admonere
Latin version of this epistle in the Long
volui, in exemplari vetustissimo
Recension ends abruptly (§ 3 'propter et emendatissimo bibliothecae Mediceae
nos ut hominem'; see above, p. 133) Florentinae, non 'AvaKXrp-if) sed Arji/tp