St Newman then cites a number of passages from St Ignatius which I shall pass over as our subject here is really what is said about how to think about religion. But there is one theme in the Fathers which St Newman has noticed which, I must admit, I had missed, which is how Christ is called the [teleios anthropos], perfect man. He writes:
The expression …, “perfect man,” was a portion of the dogmatic Catholic view existing in the fourth and fifth centuries. Now, as we have … quoted, it belongs also to Ignatius: “I endure all,” he says, “as He, who became perfect man, enables me.” Here, then, on the one hand we find a word in Ignatius which is scarcely taken from Scripture, which is uncongenial to modern sentiments, which is uncalled-for by the context, which has the air of a dogmatic expression, which was well adapted to expose existing errors, and which is found in a work which does actually oppose heresies of various sorts. On the other hand, we find this word undeniably and prominently a dogmatic term in the fourth century; can we doubt that it is dogmatic in Ignatius? or, in other words, that Ignatius’ tone of writing is inconsistent with the modern theory, whether that pious feelings, or again that good lives, are the whole of religion, and formal creeds are superfluous or burdens? (237-238)
After a good treatment of the thought of St Ignatius, he concludes:
It would seem then to be certain, that Ignatius considers our life and salvation to lie, not in the Atonement by itself, but in the Incarnation; but neither in the Incarnation nor Atonement as past events, but, as present facts, in an existing mode, in which our Saviour comes to us; or, to speak more plainly, in our Saviour Himself who is God in our flesh, and not only so, but in flesh which has been offered up on the Cross in sacrifice, which has died and has risen. The being made man, the being crucified in atonement, the being raised again, are the three past events to which the Eternal Son has vouchsafed to become to us what He is, a Saviour; and those who omit the Resurrection in their view of the divine economy, are as really defective in faith as if they omitted the Crucifixion. On the Cross He paid the debt of the world, but as He could not have been crucified without first taking flesh, so again He could not, as it would seem, apply His atonement without first rising again. Accordingly, St. Ignatius speaks of our being saved and living not simply in the Atonement, but, as the passages already quoted signify, in the flesh and blood of the risen Lord, first sacrificed for us, then communicated to us. (247-248)
He then considers another phrase from St Ignatius: “rekindling in the blood of God.” If this merely means that we are raised to a new life by the Atonement, or merely by the moral effect of the knowledge of the doctrine, it is certainly strained and inflated language; but if it be taken literally, the idea will rise, and the language will sink. If it means what the Church Catholic teaches, that the body and blood of the Word Incarnate is in some real, though unknown way, communicated to our souls and bodies, and thus becomes the principle of a new life, then no words can reach what is intended.” {248} When this is understood, the strength of St Ignatius’ language can be understood.
Thus, “It is hardly too much to say that almost the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of them.” (255)
Given that St Ignatius grew up in the first century, St Newman rhetorically asks: “How came he to lose, to blot out from his mind, the true Gospel, if this was not it? How came he to possess this, except it be apostolic?” (258) “… who shall venture to assert,” he asks: “that St. Ignatius, the contemporary and disciple of Apostles, and an Asiatic, was perverted, by causes unknown, to teach as apostolic a false doctrine, and, when travelling to martyrdom, to confess it repeatedly and consistently to churches which had not lost St. John’s guidance above half a dozen years? Surely it is impossible. Give us, then, but St. Ignatius, and we want nothing more to prove the substantial truth of the Catholic system; the proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Bible is not stronger; he who rejects the one, ought in consistency to reject the other.” (261)
He finishes, powerfully, with:
if the Catholic system, as a system, is brought so near to the Apostles; if it is proved to have existed as a paramount thought and a practical principle in the minds of their immediate disciples and associates, it becomes a very grave question, on this ground alone, waving altogether the consideration of uninterrupted Catholic consent, and the significant structure and indirect teaching of Scripture, whether the New Testament is not to be interpreted in accordance with that system. If indeed Scripture actually refuses to be so interpreted, then indeed we may be called on to suspend our judgment; but if only its text is not inconsistent with the Church system, there is surely greater reason for interpreting it in accordance with it than not; for it is surely more unaccountable that a new Gospel should have possessed the Church, and that, in the persons of its highest authorities, and almost in the lifetime and presence of Apostles, than that their extant writings should not have upon their surface the whole of Scripture truth. And thus we take our leave of St. Ignatius.