apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 267
be some difficulty
in fixing the precise position of the writer himself,
but we can entertain no doubt about the doctrinal atmosphere in which
he lived and moved. The Arian and Semiarian, the Marcellian and
ApoUinarian controversies of the middle and subsequent decades of the
fourth century are his main interest. On the other hand these epistles
contain nothing which suggests that the writer was acquainted with the
Nestorian and Monophysite disputes of the succeeding ages. This
silence is the more significant,
when we remember the polemical spirit
of our Ignatian writer.
The Catholic doctrine of the Person of Christ is
exposed to perversion,
or is discredited by extravagant statement, in two opposite directions.
On the one side there are the aberrations of Arianism and
Nestorianism ;
on the other of Sabellianism. ApoHinarianism, and
Monophysitism. On the one side there is a 'dividing of the Substance'
in the Godhead, on the other 'a confounding of the Persons,' with their
attendant or allied errors in each case. The true Ignatius of the early
years of the second century, though orthodox in his doctrinal intentions,
yet used language which seemed to transgress the bounds of careful
definition on the latter side. He spoke of 'the blood of God' {Ephes.
and i), described 'our God Jesus Christ' as 'borne in the womb of
Mary' {Ephes. 18). Hence he became a favourite authority with
Monophysite writers. On the other hand the false Ignatius of the latter
half of the fourth century, whether orthodox or not in his doctrinal
position (which is a matter of dispute), leaned to the other side ;
and he
altered and interpolated the early father whose name he assumed in
accordance with his own leanings. 'The blood of God' becomes 'the
blood of Christ' in Ephes. i ;
and ' our God Jesus Christ' becomes ' the
Son of God who was begotten before the ages' in Ephes. 18.
His exact doctrinal position has been the subject of much discussion.
For the most part he has been regarded as an Arian. This
is the view of Leclerc {Cotelier Patr. Apost.
11.
p. 506 sq, Amstel.
1724), of Grabe {Spicil. 11. p. 225 sq), and of Newman [Essays Critical
and Historical i. p. 239 sq) ;
and it has been adopted
still more
recently by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 132 sq), who is disposed to identify the
author with Acacius of Csesarea, the scholar and literary heir of
Eusebius. Funk {T/ieol. Quartalschr. lxii. p. 355 sq) defends him
against the charge of Arianism, but sets him down as an ApoUinarian.
a similar opposition of 'S.pi.cma.vhs and I have pointed out a passage in S. Basil,
Xpi-(XTiixTropos (see above, p. 261), and which is much closer to Trait. 6 than
describes this as the sole example of the expression in the Didache.
Xpi'C^TifiTropos
'
in all ancient literature '.