apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 603
Epistle {V ^glise Chrctienne p. v ; comp. ib. pp. 442 sq, 463, Les J^vangiles pp. xxviii
sq, 486 sq, 494 sq, Marc-Aurcle p. 417 sq). But, having done tliis, he casts about
helplessly for any theory which will explain the facts. These ' gemini angues ' fasten
upon him, and
Corripiunt spirisque ligant ingentibus'
'
tela ferentem
till he is hopelessly enfolded in their coils. He is driven to make two statements,
which are strangely at variance with the facts; (i) He speaks of the Epistles of
Ignatius and the Epistle of Polycarp as '
perfectly homogeneous in style and
colouring' (' parfaitement homogene de style et de couleur', Les £v. p. xxx), though
hardly any two early Christian writings differ more (see above p. 594 sq)
;
(2) He
considers that one of the main motives of the Epistle of Polycarp was to plead for
episcopacy {Les Ev. p. xxx, VEgL Chret. pp. 443, 444). If this were so, I can
only repeat what I have said before, that he could not have done his work worse.
From Daille downward, presbyterian writers of successive ages have put him forward
as their champion. As regards his own views, Renan does not, so far as I have
observed, commit himself to any definite theory, but he limits the possibilities thus;
It appears then, either that the Epistle of Polycarp and those of Ignatius are the
'
work of the same forger ('sont du meme faussaire ') or that the author of the letters
of Ignatius had the design of finding a point d'appiii in the Epistle of Polycarp and,
while adding a postcript [i.e. c. 13], of creating a recommendation for his work' (/. c. p.
xxx). And he seems to hover between these two solutions elsewhere without coming
to any definite conclusion (comp. Les Av. pp. xxvii, 486, 487, 488, Vj^gl. Chret. pp.
316, 463, 49S, Marc-Atir. p. 418). Both these theories I have already considered
in the preceding pages. As regards the former the wholly diverse character of the
two writings is a sufficient refutation. As regards the latter it has been shown, if I
mistake not, (i) that the 13th chapter is better authenticated than the other parts of the
epistle, and (2) that it is not at all what a forger would have invented to recommend
the Ignatian letters, inasmuch as it fails for this purpose both in excess and in defect.
All this perplexity Renan would have avoided by the frank acceptance of the Ignatian
Epistles as genuine. This step he is not prepared to take. On the contraiy he
declares again and again that they (or at least six out of the seven) are certainly
spurious. Yet at the same time he is
ready to allow: (i) that they were known to
Lucian (see above, p. 347) ; (2) that the journey to Rome and the martyrdom there are
historical facts (see esp. Les £v. pp. xxxiv, 487) ; (3) that the Epistle to the Romans
was known to Irenseus ; (4) that the Epistle to the Romans is genuine in the main (see
above, p. 314). After travelling so far on the road, it is difficult to see why he
should refuse to take the final step.
Other critics, less scrupulous than Renan, adopt a more drastic treatment. Their
starting-point is the assumption that the Epistle of Polycarp cannot be genuine, because
it bears testimony to the Ignatian letters which are certainly spurious. Their
other arguments are all secondary, to support this foregone conclusion. This is the
position of Schwegler, Scholten, and others. The time has gone by, when such
treatment could be received with deference.