apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

2 70 EPISTLI^S OF S. IGNATIUS.
Him whom I know, who is the cause of my generation (tov t^s e/a^s ycvvT^o-cws
air Lov) .. .{or I live by reason of the Father (Sta tov Trarepa)'.' But
in the first place, the vtrtpo-yr] of the Father is maintained by the most
orthodox writers (see Cotelier Pair. Apost. ii. p. 86), and indeed, when
rightly understood, is a necessary element of the Catholic doctrine of
the Trinity (see Bull Defens. Fid. Nicen. Sect, iv 'De subordinatione
Filii') ;
and secondly, the worship here mentioned is directly connected
with the temptation, and therefore with the humanity of Christ. Nor
kol tov
again is the expression in Trail. 5, tov re Trvcv/Aaros Tjyv vif/TjXoTrjTa
Kvpiov TTJv /ao"tA.etav kol Ittl Tracn to toC iravTOKparopos ©eou aTrapdOeTOV,
incapable of an orthodox interpretation.
On the other hand there are not wanting passages which seem to
indicate the writer as an adherent of the Nicene doctrine, (i) If he
avoids the word oVoovo-to, he uses o/xoVt/xos instead. In Philipp. 2,
speaking of the baptismal formula (Matt, xxviii. 19), he says that
baptism is enjoined 'not into One with three names nor into Three
incarnates, but into Three equal in honour (ofioTt/xovs).' It is difficult to
interpret this otherwise than as a virtual acknowledgment of the Nicene
doctrine, especially when we compare it with such passages as Athan.
Expos. Fid. I {Op.
I. p. 79), where he calls the Son tjV dXr]6LV7jv
(LKova tou TTttTpos laoTifjiov KOL 1(t6So$ov, or Greg. Naz. Oral. 31 § 12
(Op. I. p. 563), where this father speaks of t6 iv toU Tpia-lv o/xo'ti/aov Ti]