is quite peculiar, and shows that the Commentary bears all the marks of it-whilst the other part of the supposition, equally gratuitous, that the Commentary never was composed in Greek at all, receives a complete refutation from a fragment of the original Greek still preserved in the Philocalia,' and which perfectly corresponds to a passage (freely rendered) in the second book of this disputed translation of the Commentary.' The other passage in Origen which bears testimony to the Epistles of Ignatius is in a homily on St. Luke. “I meet with an elegant expression in the Epistle of the same martyr," (not in this instance again, "a saying,") "I mean Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, second after Peter, and who suffered persecution by having to fight with beasts at Rome, the virginity of Mary escaped the knowledge of the Prince of this world."" And ac cordingly the very sentence is found in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, as we have it. But here, again, the passage of Origen, like the other, was only known to exist in the Latin; which again caused Daillé, in the treatise I before alluded to, and which was subsequent to this book of his, which we are now upon, to demur to its authority, as before. Bishop Pearson replies to the objection again in a manner perfectly satisfactory. But it has happened ex abundanti that since Bishop Pearson's time the very passage in question was discovered as a fragment by Grabe in the Greek, and was communicated by him to the Benedictine editor of Origen's works, where it now appears.' This argument to the confirmation of Bishop Pearson, and further confusion of Daillé, is noticed by Dr. Routh in his preface to the "Reliquiæ Sacræ." 2 3 The manner in which Daillé expresses himself in the part of the "De Usu Patrum," which I am now examining, does not warrant us in supposing that he disputed our copies of these Epistles being the same which Eusebius at least saw. Indeed, he admits in his subsequent work that they are the same,* as though Eusebius, a consideration, which Bishop Pearson presses on him with very great force, was not competent to detect the imposture —Eusebius, whose knowledge of Greek literature was most conspicuous, Toλvμaléσтaтos loтwp, as Sozomen calls him; the intimate friend of Pamphilus, who was the greatest collector of ecclesiastical authors of his time; the correspondent to whom Constantine applies for manuscript copies of the Scriptures, when he wanted them for his library at Constantinople; the scholar who wore his life out amongst books and parchments; as though he was taken in by these forgeries, and it was reserved for Daillé to find them out. Accordingly, his argument spends itself in damaging their credit before the time of Eusebius, in showing that those with which Eusebius was conversant were spurious. There is no need, therefore, to enter into the proofs which the language of Eusebius affords, that his copies at any rate are ours: to describe how he speaks of them at length, and in detail; tells us where each of the Epistles was written (for they were written in more places than one); who were the 1 Origen. Homil. vi. in Lucam. vol. iii. p. 938. 2 Rel. Sacr. vol. i. pp. xxi. xxii. 3 His words are, "Quo exemplo non minus validè argumentamur supposititias esse eas epistolas, quæ jam ab Eusebii seculo Ignatii nomine 6 5 Vind. Ign. I. c. viii. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iii. c. 36. G Bishops at the time of the several Churches to which they are addressed; quotes long passages from them: thus furnishing many data by which we can institute a comparison between the Epistles known to Eusebius and those in our own possession-the result of which is, that they appear to be the same. There is no need, I say, on the present occasion to pursue this matter further. Enough has been said to show that Daillé deals out his denunciations of forgery with much too liberal a hand, and that the readers of his book "De Vero Usu Patrum" need not lose all heart about the study of ecclesiastical antiquity because they find him representing it as so little to be trusted. Let them explore the question for themselves, by mastering for themselves the primitive documents which are of good repute, and I undertake to say that they will then rise from the perusal of Daillé very often, perhaps generally, with a feeling that he is a special pleader, and has a cause to make good. LECTURE IV. Fourth argument of Daillé. Vagueness of it. The Fathers disposed of in the same way by Priestley. Paucity of MSS. Antiquity of some of the Versions. Improbability that the Fathers previous to Cyprian have been tampered with by the Romanists. Discussion of passages claimed as favourable to Romish views. The writings of Irenæus full of evidence against them. His appeal to tradition the same as that of the Church of England. The writings of Clemens occasionally corrupt. Discussion of passages in them claimed by the Romanists. Germ of Romish errors discoverable in Clemens. The same remark true of Tertullian. neither his writings nor those of Hippolytus in a condition satisfactory to a Romish interpolator. But DAILLE has been hitherto chiefly contemplating entire spurious works as distinguished from such as are genuine; and has been expatiating upon the difficulty even in this case of discriminating the false from the true; but he has not yet done with this argument of forgery, and the plea it affords for damaging the credit of the Fathers. Accordingly he now proceeds to another branch of it, and contends that if it is difficult to decide even upon the genuineness of whole books (which was the consideration we were dealing with in the last Lecture), how much more, upon all the component parts of even unsuspected books, what has been interpolated, and what expunged in them.' Yet, until this has been done, the real sentiments of the authors can never be attained; not to speak of the errors of transcribers in the copies that have been made during ten or a dozen centuries, and the depredations on the manuscripts occasioned by moths, worms, decay. I notice all this, for the same reason I before noticed his array of fictitious works (works which everybody 1 Daillé, pp. 59, 60. allows to be fictitious), simply in order to show the animus of the man, and the determinate exaggeration with which he states his case against the Fathers. For who does not see that most or all of these objections bear, if not with equal strength yet certainly with great strength, against the genuineness of all ancient books whatever, even of the Scriptures themselves, and reduce one to principles of universal scepticism? Nothing is more easy than to throw out a charge that a book is interpolated, when the subject-matter of it does not happen to suit our taste; and in the case of an ancient book, nothing is more difficult than to disprove the objection by any distinct evidence. The expedient may serve the turn of Daillé, in order to dispose of testimony on the Romish question, which he might fancy was inconvenient, and those who think with him might feel inclined to favour his temerity; but the same expedient might serve the turn of a Priestley equally well, and was in fact employed by him to extinguish evidence which the same quarter supplies on the Socinian question and the divinity of the Son, so that it is a dangerous edgetool to use. "We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr," says Dr. Priestley-But the Epistle of Barnabas is against you?-Yes, but the text and translation of that Epistle are interpolated. And the Epistle of Clemens Romanus? But the manuscript of Clemens is faulty. And the Epistles of Ignatius ? But the numerous passages in which the divinity of Christ is clearly confessed in those Epistles are foisted in, every one of them. "Having by this compendious process," says Mr. Wilson in his "Illustration of the method of explaining the New Testament by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ," "reduced the Apostolical Fathers to his own 1 History of the Corruptions of Christianity, vol. i. p. 32. 2 Wilson, pp. 282, 283. Cambridge. 1838. |