apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

THE GENUINENESS. 333
probably by some Latin author (pp. 283, 438, 443, 474 sq) or that
a reference to evangelical narratives or incidents not contained in the
Canonical Gospels {Smyrn. 3) is an argument against the early date
of the writings which contain them (p. 338 sq) or that an author
who persistently distinguishes the first and second order of the Christian
ministry, as bishops and presbyters respectively, could not have written
during the second century (p. 386 sq) And again what shall we say
of the hairsplitting in which he indulges Thus he argues that the
statement in Smyrn. 3 that Christ ' after His resurrection ate and drank
with ' the Apostles cannot have been written by an Apostolic father,
because the Gospels only record that Christ ate (Luke xxiv. 42, 43),
never that He drank, after the resurrection, and though they mention
the Apostles eating and drinking with Him (Acts x. 41), they nowhere
speak of His eating and drinking with them (p. 365).
This being the general character of the book,
it is difficult to
account for the extravagant eulogies which have been pronounced
upon it in some quarters. More especially do the praises of critics
like Bunsen (/. v. A. p. 239), who accept the Curetonian letters as
genuine, appear out of place ;
for with very few exceptions Daille's
arguments, if valid at all, are equally valid against the Curetonian
letters as against the Vossian. The literary ability of this work is
undeniable ;
but it has contributed nothing, or next to nothing, of
permanent value to the solution of the Ignatian question. Its true
claim to our gratitude is of a wholly different kind. If Daille had
not attacked the Ignatian letters, Pearson would not have stepped
forward as their champion.
Pearson's great work, Vindiciae Episiolarum S. Ignatii, was published
in 1672. It was incomparably the most valuable contribution
to the subject which had hitherto appeared, with the single exception
of Ussher's work. Pearson's learning, critical
ability, clearness of
statement, and moderation of tone, nowhere appear to greater advantage
than in this work. If here and there an argument
is overstrained,
this was the almost inevitable consequence of the writer's
position, as the chanipion of a cause which had been recklessly and
violently assailed on all sides. The least satisfactory, though the most
elaborate and ingenious, portion of the work is the defence of the
passage describing Jesus Christ as God's ' Eternal Logos not having
proceeded from Silence ' {Magn. 8). The true solution was reserved
for our own age, when the correct text has been restored by the
aid of newly discovered authorities. But on the whole, compared
with Daille's attack, Pearson's reply was as light to darkness. In