apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

THE GENUINENESS. 34 1
phorus 'the God-bearer' (comp. Ephes. 9 Travres 6eo(ji6poi . . . . xpt^o'ro-
(f>6poL) in these words of Irenseus ' Dominus apparuit in terris, cum
martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse misericordiam consecutus, opprobrium
simul bajulavit hominis, et cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quaedam
donata eis.' So again in the same context he speaks of the Church
as suffering in the person of those who undergo persecution but *
anon
growing fresh Hmbs and being restored to her integrity (statim augens
membra et integra fiens),' herein employing language which closely
resembles the Ignatian description of the recovery of the Church
of Antioch after the restoration of peace {Smyrn. 1 1 direXa/Sov to
tStov //.eye^os ^at d-n-eKaTeaTaOr] avTols to ISlov crcoyaaTetov).
In short the
passages in Irenseus relating to the Docetic heretics are found, when
examined carefully, to be instinct with the language and thoughts
of the Ignatian letters, more especially of the Epistle to the Smyrngeans.
It is no surprise to find these resemblances in a pupil of
Polycarp.
Here then is the answer, alike to Daille (pp. 257 sq, 270 sq, 433
sq), who maintains that Irenaeus cannot have been acquainted with the
Epistle to the Romans because he does not quote against
heretics the
other epistles which formed part of the same collection, and to Renan
{Les Evangiles p. xxxi), who argues that the Epistle to the Romans cannot
have formed part of the same collection with the other six because,
though Irensus certainly was acquainted with this one epistle, he betrays
no knowledge of the others. But one point
still remains to be
considered. What amount of force is there in Daille's assumption that,
if Irenaeus had known these letters, he must have quoted them against
the heretics This question
is answered by reference to his practice in
other cases. Why does he not quote Polycarp's Epistle, though he was
certainly acquainted with it (iii. 3. 4), and it
though contains not a few
things (e.g. § 7) which would have served his purpose excellently
Why does he mention Clement of Rome and Papias once only, though
they would have afforded abundant material useful for the end which he
had in view
Why are only two passages cited from Justin Martyr, and
these from works no longer extant, though Justin's extant writings would
have furnished many more passages suitable for his purpose
than the
Ignatian Epistles Why lastly does he entirely ignore other early
Christian writers such as Melito and Dionysius of Corinth, or at least
not quote them by name, though they wrote on kindred subjects
and their writings must have been store-houses of serviceable quotations
Of the passages in the Ignatian Epistles which Daille especially
mentions, as likely to have been quoted, a considerable number are