apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

'
250 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
half of the
fourth century, when Eusebius wrote, this was not the case.
He gives a more than usually full account of the career of Ignatius
(see above, p. 146), whom he describes as still
widely renowned (Trapa
TrAetcTTots etVen vvv SiaySovyros).
His account of the letters is obviously
meant to be exhaustive. He even quotes references to them in writers
of the succeeding generations. Elsewhere (as for instance in the case of
the Roman Clement), when he is
acquainted with any spurious or doubtful
works ascribed to the same author, he is careful to mention the fact.
Here there is
nothing of the kind. He enumerates the Seven Epistles
alone; and of these he speaks without a shadow of misgiving'.
^
Cureton's views respecting the testimony
of Eusebius are too extravagant to
find general acceptance ; but as they
seem to have confused some of his readers,
be worth while once for all to ex-
it
may
amine them.
(i)
He maintains very positively that
Eusebius hesitates as to the genuineness
of the Seven Epistles (pp. Ixxi, 337).
His two arguments are: (a) The historian
throws doubt on their genuineness by
using 'the guarded expression' X670S ^X"-
But in the Jirsi place this expression (see
above, p. 146) refers not to the letters of
Ignatius, which he quotes categorically
without any shadow of misgiving, nor to
any facts related in those letters, but solely
to the incident of his martyrdom, to
which the letters, from the nature of the
case, could not bear direct testimony; and
secondly, the examples of X67os ^x" elsewhere
in Eusebius show that the expression
in itself does not throw any doubt
on the facts recorded but signifies neither
more nor less than 'it is related'; H. E.
ii. 17, 22, iii. 37, iv. 28, V. 5 bis, vii. 32,
viii. 17 appendix;
see also the note to
Ko-Tix^i. \6yos on p. 58, above.
(/3)
Cureton considers it ' to be quite evident
from the following passages that he [Eusebius]
did not esteem the genuineness
and authenticity of the Epistles of S. Ignatius
and S. Polycarp to be equally
established with that of the First Epistle
of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which
was usually acknowledged ;
Kal 6 Uo-
XvKapwos de tovtuv avTuv fj,ifj.V7)ra.L ev ry
(pepofiivri avTov npbs ^i\nnrr](Tlovs iiriffTO-
\rj (iii. 36), (jiarrep ovv ajxiXei tqv 'Xyvarlov
iv ah KareKi^afiev einaToKah Kal rod K\jjxevTos
if Ty duwuoKoyrjixevri irapd wdcriv,
7]i>
(K irpoaihirov tt^s 'Pu/xaiwv e/c/c\7;crlas
T-^ Kopiv6iwv SieTVTTibaaTO (c. 37), i] fxiv
oZv Tou K\r^/j.efTos 6/jLo\oyov/xivT] ypa(pi]
TTpoSTjXos' e'iprjTai 5i /cat to. 'lyvariov Kal
UoXvKdpirov (c. 38). By this juxtaposition
of separate passages Cureton would
make it
appear as though the antithesis
in Eusebius were between the cpepoixivT]
on the one side, and the a.vw/j.o\oyr]/jiii>r],
b/MoXoyov/xivT], on the other. But (i)
Taken in connexion with their several
contexts, the expressions do not suggest
anything of the kind. The genuine E-
pistle of Clement to the Corinthians is
called 'acknowledged' to distinguish it
from another Epistle to the Corinthians
also bearing his name, but not universally
received. It has no reference whatever
to the writings of Ignatius or Polycarp.
(2) The expression (pepofxev-q is only used
of Polycarp 's letter, and there is no ground
for extending it to those of Ignatius. (3)
It is highly improbable that Eusebius
should have entertained a doubt of the
genuineness of Polycarp's letter, which
he knew to he quoted by Polycarp's disciple
IrenKus and which he himself uses
as bearing testimony to the Epistles of
Ignatius. (4) The word (pipeadai does
not suggest any such doubt. Eusebius
uses it of the First Epistle of S. John (iii.