apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 27 1
KarayyiXXa 0€ov ctt* dvaipicrH 7175 tov Xpicrrov OeoTrjTO's). (5) He himself
repeatedly speaks of Christ as God, sometimes retaining this designation
where he found it in the text of the genuine Ignatius (Fo/yc. 8,
jRom. inscr., 6, E/>/ies. 7),
sometimes even inserting
it
propria nwiu
where it does not so occur {Tars, i, 6, Smyrn. 5, Ephcs. 15 ;
and with
Xoyos or /itovoyci'T^, Smyrn. i, Philad. 4, 6, Magn. 6; comp. Ant. 4, 5).
With these facts before us, we should find it difficult to convict him
of Arianism. At the most our verdict must be, Non liquet. It is obvious
indeed that he had a great horror of anything like Sabellianism, and this
dread led him to avoid the Nicene term o/xoovo-tos ; to emphasize the
antithesis of ayeVvT^ros and y6vv7T09,
as .designating the Father and the
Son respectively, though commonly shunned by Nicene writers ;
and
generally to lay stress on the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity
not without some risk of appearing to divide the Substance. In short
his is position not unlike that of Eusebius of Caesarea. He leans to
the side of Arianism, though without definitely crossing the border.
But on one point he was certainly heretical. If it is highly
questionable whether he disputed the perfect Godhead of our Lord, it
certain that he denied the perfect manhood.
In Smyrn. 4 he instinctively
omits the words tov re/Vetou dv^pwTrou, though the passage loses greatly by
the omission, its point being the perfect sympathy of Christ as flowing
from His perfect humanity. In Philipp. 5 indeed he is made in the
common text to speak of Christ as 'perfect man '
(rcAetos av^pcoTros), but
it is plain from the authorities (see iii. p. 193) that this is a scribe's
alteration to bring his language into harmony with orthodox doctrine.
In two several passages he explains his own creed. In Philipp. 5 he
states negatively that Christ 'had no human soul' (tov ovk dvOpwTruav
ij/vxv^ txovra). In Philad. 6 he declares on the positive side that ' God
the Word dwelt in a human body,' and again that ' God dwelt in Him
and not a human soul,' wherefore it was heretical to say that Jesus
Christ was ' a man, consisting of soul and body.' In both passages
(see III. pp. 193, 212 sq) copyists or translators have tampered with
the text, altering it so as to remove this blemish of heterodoxy.
Is this ApolHnarianism Not strictly so.
ApoUinaris himself adopted
the tripartite
division of man's nature, vo£>s (or Trvev/xa), \pvxTq, a-wfxa ;
and accordingly he held that the Divine Logos took the place of the
human Nous. It is stated however that certain ApoUinarians denied
not only the human vov but the human xj/vxrj also (Epiphan. Haer.
Ixxvii. 2, 24), apparently adopting a bipartite division. This indeed
seems to have been the earlier position of the school, from which it was
driven under pressure of scriptural arguments (see especially Socr.
is