apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

THE GENUINENESS. 425
the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, with which Irenaeus was connected,
bear out this same conclusion (pp. 141, 343). When again we travel
beyond the circle of Polycarp's spiritual relationships, the evidence
still points — in the same direction. After Irenseus the earliest direct
quotations in fact the only direct quotations during the Antenicene age
— are found in Origen and Eusebius. But the Epistle to the Romans
and the other epistles are alike quoted by Origen (p. 144) and by
Eusebius (p. 146 sq).
It is difficult to resist this same conclusion
in the case of Ephrem Syrus (see p. 150), who was a younger contemporary
of Eusebius. It is certainly true likewise of Timotheus of
Alexandria (p. 173 sq) and Severus of Antioch (p. 178 sq) in the fifth
and sixth centuries.
Zahn however is
impressed with the fact that, while some writers
quote only the Epistle to the Romans, others quote only
from the
remaining epistles; and he can only explain this fact on the supposition
that the two were circulated separately (/.
v. A. p. no). But it is
pertinent to ask in these cases, whether the explanation may not be
sought in the character of the writings themselves. Thus for instance in
Acts of Martyrdom and the like, we should expect to find resemblances
to the Epistle to the Romans. On the other hand in works relating to
ecclesiastical order or to doctrinal verity, such as the Apostolic Constitutions
or the Dialogues of Theodoret or the Syriac collection of patristic
passages which have the force of canons (see above, p. 91), we naturally
look for quotations from the other letters but not from the Epistle to the
Romans. This epistle contains nothing at all bearing upon ecclesiastical
order. There is not very much even of doctrinal significance
beyond the expression § 6 'the suffering of my God', which, though a
favourite text with Monophysites, was viewed with suspicion beyond the
range of Monophysite circles. Theodoret (see p. 170 sq) only quotes
three of the seven epistles; and all the passages quoted by him have a
direct doctrinal bearing. It is therefore not only no surprise, but altogether
natural that the Roman letter should have escaped quotation.
'
Moreover, if the erroneous heading 'Romans' for '
Smyrnseans (p. 170)
be a slip of his own, and not a blunder of a transcriber, this is almost
conclusive evidence that the Epistle to the Romans formed part of his
collection. Again, Zahn adverts to the fact that the gnomologers of the
seventh and following centuries, while quoting the other epistles, abstain
from any quotation from Romans. These are mainly three — the two
sets of Sacra Parallela bearing the name of John Damascene (p. 212
sq) and the Loci Communes of Antonius (p. 226 sq).
But in the first
place these are not altogether independent authorities. Antonius for