Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第十三章尼西亚会议前时期的教会文献与教父传略

§ 159. 参考文献

I. 教父著作总集

本笃会 (Benedictine) 各版曾在巴黎、威尼斯等地多次出版，就其所涵盖的范围而言，是最好的版本，但尚不能满足当前文献批判学的要求。耶稣会士（佩塔维乌斯〔Petavius〕、西尔蒙〔Sirmond〕、阿尔杜安〔Harduin〕）和多明我会士（孔贝菲斯〔Combefis〕、勒基安〔Le Quien〕）也曾出版若干教父的著作。这些版本及较近的版本，将在各有关节中提及。教父著作集主要有以下各种：

《古代教父最大文库》等（Maxima Bibliotheca veteru Patrum）。里昂 (Lugd.)，1677年，27卷，对开本。收录篇幅较少的作者著作，且仅有拉丁文译本。

A. 加兰迪 (A. Gallandi；Andreas Gallandius，奥拉托利会士，卒于1779年)：《古代教父希腊文—拉丁文文库》等（Bibliotheca Graeco-Latina veterum Patrum）。威尼斯 (Ven.)，1765—1788年，14卷，对开本。共收录380位教会作家的著作（比 Bibl Max. 多180位），附希腊文和拉丁文文本，并有颇具价值的专题论述和注释。

米涅神父 (Abbé Migne；Jacques Paul，生于1800年，教皇至上派刊物《宗教世界》〔L’Univers religeux〕及蒙鲁日〔Montrouge〕天主教印刷所的创办人；该印刷所于1868年毁于火灾)：《教父学全编，或全体圣教父、圣师及教会作家的普遍、完整、统一、便利、经济的文库》（Patrologiae cursus completus sive Bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque ecelesiasticorum）。小蒙鲁日 (Petit Montrouge，巴黎附近)，1844—1866年（Garnier Frères）。这是价格最廉、内容最全的教父文库，但编校草率，错误颇多。收录范围下迄十三世纪，拉丁文部分222卷，希腊文部分167卷，据本笃会及其他优良版本重印，附有导论、传记、专题论述、补遗等。部分印版于1868年毁于火灾，但已重新补制。使用时须极为谨慎。

奥鲁瓦神父 (Abbé Horoy)：《自1216年至特伦托会议时期的教父文库》（Bibliotheca Patristica ab anno MCCXVI. usque ad Concilii Tridentini Tempora）。巴黎，1879年及后。这是米涅文库的续编，属于中世纪史的范围。

维也纳帝国科学院于1866年着手编纂拉丁教父著作的新校勘版，题为《拉丁教会作家文集》（Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum）。第一卷收苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpicius Severus) 的著作，由 C. 哈尔姆 (C. Halm) 编校，1866年；第二卷收米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix) 和尤利乌斯·菲尔米库斯·马特尔努斯 (Jul. Firmicus Maternus) 的著作，仍由哈尔姆编校，1867年；居普良 (Cyprian) 的著作由哈尔特尔 (Hartel) 编校，1876年；阿诺比乌斯 (Arnobius) 的著作由赖费尔沙伊德 (Reifferscheid) 编校；康莫迪安努斯 (Commodianus) 的著作由东巴特 (Dombart) 编校；萨尔维安努斯 (Salvianus) 的著作由保利 (Pauly) 编校；卡西安努斯 (Cassianus) 的著作由佩切希 (Petscheig) 编校；普里西利安 (Priscillian) 的著作由舍普斯 (Schepss) 编校，等等。从1866年至1889年，迄今已出版18卷。

希腊教父著作的新校勘版更为迫切需要。

奥伯图尔 (Oberthur)、里希特 (Richter)、格尔斯多夫 (Gersdorf) 等人编有早期教父著作的便携版本。

专门的教父残篇集有格拉贝 (Grabe) 的《教父拾遗》（Spicilegium Patrum），劳思 (Routh) 的《神圣遗篇》（Reliquiae Sacrae），安杰洛·迈 (Angelo Mai) 的《古代作家新集》（Scriptorum vet. nova Collectio，罗马〔Rom.〕，1825—1838年，10卷）、《罗马拾遗》（Spicilegium roman.，1839—1844年，10卷）、《教父新文库》（Nova Patrum Bibliotheca，1852年及后，7卷）；皮特拉枢机 (Card. Pitra) 的《索莱姆拾遗》（Spicilegium Solesmense，1852年及后，5卷），利韦拉尼 (Liverani) 的《利贝里安拾遗》（Spiciles Liberianum，1865年），以及其他人的著作。

II. 尼西亚会议前教父的专集

《使徒教父集》（Patres Apostolici）最好的校勘本包括：新教方面，奥斯卡·冯·格布哈特 (Oscar Von Gebhardt)、哈纳克 (Harnack) 和察恩 (Zahn) 合编的一种（第II版，莱比锡〔Lips.〕，1876—1878年，分3部分）；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 编的另一种（第II版，莱比锡，1876年及后，分若干部分）；莱特福特主教 (Bp. Lightfoot) 编的一种（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1869年及后）；罗马天主教方面，赫费勒主教 (Bp. Hefele) 编的一种，其第五版由芬克教授 (Prof. Funk) 修订，图宾根 (Tübingen)，1878年及1881年，2卷。参见§ 161。

《第二世纪基督教护教士文集》（Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Seculi II.），奥托 (Otto) 编。耶拿 (Jenae)，1847—1850年；第III版，1876年及后。另有 O. 冯·格布哈特 (O. v. Gebhardt) 和 E. 施瓦茨 (E. Schwartz) 编的新校勘版，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1888年及后。

罗伯茨 (Roberts) 与唐纳森 (Donaldson)：《尼西亚会议前基督教文库》（Ante-Nicene Christian Library）。爱丁堡，1857—1872年，24卷。授权重印本，纽约 (N. York)，1885—1886年，8卷。

III. 传记、批判研究与教义研究；教父思想研究与教父文献学

圣哲罗姆 (St. Jerome，卒于419年)：《名人传》（De Viris illustrious）。共135条，简述圣经作者及教会作家的事迹，下迄公元393年。根纳迪乌斯 (Gennadius，490年)、伊西多尔 (Isidor，636年)、伊尔德丰斯 (Ildefons，667年) 等人作有续编。

佛提乌斯 (Photius，卒于890年)：《万卷书，或文库》（Μυριοβίβλιον, ἢ βιβλιοθήκη^*），J. 贝克尔 (J. Becker) 编，柏林 (Berol.)，1824年，2卷，对开本；亦收入米涅的《佛提乌斯著作集》（Phot. Opera），第III、IV卷。摘录280位希腊异教及基督教作家的著作，其中部分著作现已佚失。详细介绍见赫尔根勒特 (Hergenröther) 的《佛提乌斯》（Photius），III，第13—31页。

贝拉明 (Bellermin，罗马天主教)：《教会作家论》（Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis，自旧约至公元1500年）。罗马 (Rom.)，1613年，此后屡次再版。

蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont，罗马天主教)：《教会史参考备忘录》（Memoirs pour servir à l’histoire ecclés.）。巴黎 (Par.)，1693年及后，16卷。论述最初六个世纪。

L. E. 迪潘 (L. E. Dupin，罗马天主教，卒于1719年)：《教会作家新文库，含其生平史》等（Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, contenant l’histoire de leur vie）。巴黎 (Par.)，1688—1715年，47卷，八开本。连同库热 (Coujet)、珀蒂-迪迪耶 (Petit-Didier) 续至十八世纪的部分，以及 R. 西蒙 (R. Simon) 的批评，共61卷；第9版，巴黎，1698年及后。另有一不完整版，阿姆斯特丹 (Amstel.)，1690—1713年，20卷，四开本。

雷米·塞利耶 (Remi Ceillter，罗马天主教，卒于1761年)：《圣经与教会作家通史》（Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclesiastiques）。巴黎 (Par.)，1729—1763年，23卷，四开本；增补新版，巴黎，1858—1865年，14卷。比迪潘的著作更完整、更准确，但较不宽容；下迄十三世纪中叶。

威廉·凯夫 (Will. Cave，圣公会，卒于1713年)：《自基督降生至十四世纪的教会作家史》（Scriptorum ecelesiasticorum Historia a Christo nato usque ad saecul. XIV.）。伦敦 (Lond.)，1688—1698年，2卷；日内瓦，1720年；科隆 (Colon.)，1722年；最佳版本由沃特兰 (Waterland) 督编，牛津 (Oxf.)，1740—1743年，后于巴塞尔重印，1741—1745年。此书按世纪编排（saeculum Apostolicum，使徒世纪；s. Gnosticuni，诺斯替世纪；s. Novatianum，诺瓦提安世纪；s. Arianum，阿里乌斯世纪；s. Nestorianum，聂斯托利世纪；s. Eutychianum，欧提奇世纪；s. Monotheleticum，基督一志论世纪，等等）。W. 凯夫：《最初四世纪杰出教父传》（Lives of the most eminent fathers of the church that flourished in the first four centuries）。最佳版本由亨利·卡里 (Henry Cary) 修订。牛津，1840年，3卷。

查尔斯·乌丹 (Chas. Oudin，起初为修士，后成为新教徒，任莱顿大学图书馆员，卒于1717年)：《贝拉明、波塞维诺、凯夫、迪潘及其他人所遗漏的古代教会作家及其著作评述，下迄1460年》（Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis illorumque scriptis, a Bellarmino, Possevino, Caveo, Dupin et aliis omissis, ad ann. 1460）。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1722年，3卷，对开本。

约翰·阿尔布雷希特·法布里修斯 (John Alb. Fabricius，“书目学家中最博学、著述最丰、也最有用的一位”，1668年生于莱比锡，汉堡修辞学教授，卒于1736年)：《希腊文库，或古希腊作家述略》（Bibliotheca Graeca, sive notilia Scriptorum veterum Graecorum）；第III版，汉堡 (Hamb.)，1718—1728年，14卷；第IV版，由 G. Chr. 哈勒斯 (G. Chr. Harless) 增订，汉堡，1790—1811年，12卷（未完成）。这部耗费四十年心血的巨著，涵盖十八世纪初以前所有希腊作家，但编排不便检索。（S. F. G. 霍夫曼〔S. F. G. Hoffmann〕的《希腊人全部文献书目辞典》〔Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammten Literatur der Griechen，莱比锡〔Leipz.〕，3卷，第2版，1844—1845年〕是此书一部很有价值的补编。）J. A. 法布里修斯还出版了《中世纪及晚期拉丁文库》（Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis），汉堡，1734–’46^*年，6卷（曼西〔Mansi〕增订版，帕多瓦，1754年，3卷）；以及《教会文库》（Bibliotheca ecclesiastical），汉堡，1718年，1卷，对开本，内收哲罗姆、根纳迪乌斯 (Gennadius)、伊西多尔 (Isidore)、伊尔德丰苏斯 (Ildefondus)、特里特米乌斯 (Trithemius，卒于1515年) 及其他人所编的教会作家目录。

C. T. G. 舍内曼 (C. T. G. Schönemann)：《自德尔图良至大贵格利及伊西多尔的拉丁教父历史文献书目》（Bibliotheca historico-literaria patrum Latinorum a Tertulliano usque ad Gregorina M. et Isidorum .）。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1792年，2卷。法布里修斯《拉丁文库》（Biblioth. Lat.）的续编。

G. 伦佩尔 (G. Lumper，罗马天主教)：《最初三个世纪圣教父生平、著作及教义的神学批判史》（Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis et doctrina SS. Patrum trium primorum saeculorum）。奥格斯堡 (Aug. Vind.)，1783—1799年，13卷，八开本。

A. 默勒 (A. Möhler，罗马天主教，卒于1838年)：《教父学，或基督教文献史》（Patrologie, oder christliche Literärgeschichte）。赖特迈尔 (Reithmayer) 编。雷根斯堡 (Regensb.)，1840年，第I卷。仅论最初三个世纪。

J. 费斯勒 (J. Fessler，罗马天主教)：《教父学纲要》（Institutiones patrologicae）。因斯布鲁克 (Oenip.)，1850—1852年，2卷。

J. C. F. 贝尔 (J. C. F. Bähr)：《罗马文学史》（Geschichte der römischen Literatur）。卡尔斯鲁厄 (Karlsruhe)，1836年；第4版，1868年。

弗里德里希·伯林格 (Fr. Böhringer，卒于1879年)：《基督的教会及其见证人，或传记体教会史》（Die Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen, oder die K. G. in Biographien）。苏黎世 (Zür.)，1842年（第2版，1861年及后、1873年及后），2卷，分7部分（下迄十六世纪）。

约翰·阿尔措格 (Joh. Alzog，罗马天主教，弗赖堡教授，卒于1878年)：《教父学纲要，或早期基督教文献史》（Grundriss der Patrologie oder der älteren christl. Literärgeschichte）。弗赖堡 (Frieburg)，1866年；第2版，1869年；第3版，1876年；第4版，1888年。

詹姆斯·唐纳森 (James Donaldson)：《从使徒去世至尼西亚会议的基督教文献与教义批判史》（A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council）。伦敦，1864—1866年，3卷。极有价值，但尚未完成。

约瑟夫·施瓦内 (Jos. Schwane，罗马天主教)：《教父时期教义史》（Dogmengeschichte der patristischen Zeit）。明斯特 (Münster)，1866年。

阿道夫·埃伯特 (Adolf Ebert)：《基督教拉丁文文献史：从起源至查理大帝时代》（Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Literatur von ihren Anfängen bis zum Zeitalter Karls des Grossen）。莱比锡，1872年（624页）。这是一部规模更大的中世纪文献通史的第一卷。第二卷（1880年）论述从查理大帝 (Charlemagne) 至秃头查理 (Charles the Bald) 时期的文献。

约瑟夫·尼尔施尔 (Jos. Nirschl，罗马天主教)：《教父文献学与教父思想研究教科书》（Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik）。美因茨 (Mainz)，第I卷，1881年（VI及384页）。

乔治·A. 杰克逊 (George A. Jackson)：《早期基督教文献入门》（Early Christian Literature Primers）。纽约 (N. York)，1879—1883年，4小卷，内收教父著作选段。

弗里德里希·W. 法勒 (Fr. W. Farrar)：《教父传：传记体教会史略》（Lives of the Fathers. Sketches of Church History in Biographies）。伦敦 (Lond.) 和纽约 (N. York)，1889年，2卷。

IV. 论教父的权威与运用

达莱乌斯 (Dallaeus；Daillé，加尔文派)：《论在争议裁决中教父的运用》（De usu Patrum in decidendis controversiis）。日内瓦 (Genev.)，1656年（此后屡次再版）。反对罗马天主教以迷信而奴性的态度过分尊崇教父。

J. W. 埃伯尔 (J. W. Eberl，罗马天主教)：《教父学研究指南》（Leitfaden zum Studium der Patrologie）。奥格斯堡 (Augsb.)，1854年。

J. J. 布伦特 (J. J. Blunt，圣公会)：《早期教父的正确运用》（The Right Use of the Early Fathers）。伦敦 (Lond.)，1857年；第3版，1859年。限于最初三个世纪，主要针对达耶 (Daillé)、巴贝拉 (Barbeyrat) 和吉本 (Gibbon) 对教父的贬抑进行论辩。

V. 论教父的哲学

H. 里特尔 (H. Ritter)：《基督教哲学史》（Geschichte der christl Philosophie）。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1841年及后，2卷。

约翰·胡伯 (Joh. Huber，卒于1879年，去世时为旧天主教徒)：《教父的哲学》（Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter）。慕尼黑 (München)，1859年。

A. 施特克尔 (A. Stöckl，罗马天主教)：《教父时期哲学史》（Geschichte der Philosophie der patristischen Zeit）。维尔茨堡 (Würz b.)，1858年，2卷；又《中世纪哲学史》（Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters），美因茨 (Mainz)，1864—1866年，3卷。

弗里德里希·于伯韦格 (Friedr. Ueberweg)：《哲学史》（History of Philosophy，莫里斯〔Morris〕与波特〔Porter〕英译）。纽约 (N. Y.)，1876年（第一卷）。

VI. 教父学辞典

J. C. 苏伊策 (J. C. Suicer，1660年卒于苏黎世)：《希腊教父教会语汇宝库》（Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e Patribus Graecis）。阿姆斯特丹 (Amstel.)，1682年；第2版，大幅改进，1728年，2卷，对开本（另换新扉页，乌得勒支〔Utr.〕，1746年）。

杜康日 (Du Cange；Car. Dufresne，本笃会士，卒于1688年)：《中世纪及晚期希腊文作家词汇表》（Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis）。里昂 (Lugd.)，1688年，2卷。同一作者另著《中世纪及晚期拉丁文作家词汇表》（Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Latinitatis），巴黎 (Par.)，1681年，1733年再版，6卷，对开本；卡尔庞捷 (Carpenter) 重编本，1766年，4卷；亨舍尔 (Henschel) 重编本，巴黎，1840—1850年，7卷。约翰·默里 (John Murray，伦敦) 曾预告将出版 E. A. 戴曼 (E. A. Dayman) 修订的杜康日著作英文本，但截至1889年仍未问世。

E. A. 索福克勒斯 (E. A. Sophocles)：《拉丁时期与拜占庭时期希腊语词汇表》（A glossary of Latin and Byzantine Greek）。波士顿，1860年；增订版，1870年。约瑟夫·H. 塞耶 (Jos. H. Thayer) 编新版，1888年。

G. 科夫曼 (G. Koffmane)：《教会拉丁语史》（Geschichte des Kirchlateins）。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1879年及后。

威廉·史密斯 (Wm. Smith) 和亨利·韦斯 (Henry Wace)（圣公会）：《基督教人物、文献、宗派与教义辞典》（A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines）。伦敦，第I卷，1877–1887^*年，4卷。这部教父人物辞典，无论在英语还是任何其他语言中，都远胜同类著作，是英格兰教会学术的一座崇高丰碑。

E. C. 理查森 (E. C. Richardson，康涅狄格州哈特福德)：《尼西亚会议前教父书目综览》（Bibliographical Synapsis of the Ante-Nicene Fathers）。《尼西亚会议前教父集》美国版的附录，纽约 (N. York)，1887年。极为完备。

§ 160. 对教父的总体评价

由于基督教首先是一种以神圣事实为根基的宗教，又是道德上的新创造，所以在其历史中，文学与学术的因素起初居于次要和从属的地位。在使徒中，唯有保罗受过高深的教育；即使是他，也使自己的拉比学养和卓越天赋，服从于借启示赐给他的更高的属灵知识。然而，正因为基督教是一种新生命，它也必然产生新的学术与文学；这部分出于信仰内在的冲动，要更深刻、更清楚地认识其对象，以满足自身的需要；部分出于抵御外来攻击、保全自身的要求；部分则出于教导和引导民众的实际需要。教会也逐渐吸收了古典文化，使之为自己的神学服务。整个中世纪，教会几乎是文学与艺术唯一的载体和守护者；近代欧美文明中最优秀的成分，也都由她孕育而生。我们已经论述了本时期在护教学、论战神学和教义神学领域中所进行的宏大思想工作。在本节中，我们所要讨论的是教父学 (patrology)，即古代神学与文学的人物传记及书目资料。

最初六个世纪的教会学术，几乎完全是在希腊—罗马文化的模子中铸成的。最早的教父，甚至包括在罗马及其附近生活和工作的罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)、黑马 (Hermas) 和希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)，都效法使徒，使用希腊语，只按基督教观念的需要作相应的调整。直到第二世纪末，拉丁语才借着德尔图良 (Tertullian) 成为基督教学术与文学的媒介，而且这并非发生在意大利，而是在北非。然而，拉丁教会在很长时期内仍依赖希腊教会的学术。希腊教会较为激越，富于思辨和辩证精神；拉丁教会则较为稳健、务实，致力于外在组织；不过，双方都有显著的例外：希腊教会的金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 是教父中最伟大的讲坛雄辩家，而拉丁教会的奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 则是其中最深刻的思辨神学家。

一般而言，教父文学在形式的优美上远逊于古典文学，但在内容的坚实价值上却远远超过后者。它所披戴的，是其主在肉身之日所取的奴仆形象，而非这世界华美的王侯衣袍。人们确信基督教真理的力量，因此不大在意表达真理所用的形式。此外，最早的基督教作家中，有许多人早年未受过教育，又因当时艺术屡被滥用，服务于偶像崇拜和败坏的道德，便对艺术怀有某种反感。然而，即使在第二、第三世纪，他们当中也有人，尤其是革利免和奥利金 (Origen)，在学问和哲学修养上居于时代的前列；到了第四、第五世纪，亚他那修 (Athanasius)、贵格利 (Gregory)、金口约翰、奥古斯丁和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 等人的文学作品，在各方面都胜过同时代的异教文学。许多教父，如两位革利免、殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras)、提阿非罗 (Theophilus)、德尔图良、居普良 (Cyprian)，以及后来的哲罗姆和奥古斯丁，都是成年以后才接受基督教的；他们以何等的热忱、精力和感恩之心持守这信仰，实在值得留意。

“教父”一词源于早期的一种习惯，即把父亲的观念移用于属灵关系，尤其是教师、祭司和主教的关系。在我们这里所论的意义上，这一观念必然包括古老性，因而对后来各个时期和教会各个支派具有某种程度的普遍权威。因此，这一尊称理当限于最初五六个世纪中较为杰出的教师；当然，使徒除外，因为他们是受默示、传达基督旨意的器皿，远超众教父之上。所以，这称号适用于东西方基督教世界分裂以前，教义在普世范围内形成的时期。拉丁教父的世系通常以教皇贵格利一世 (Gregory I.，卒于604年) 为终点，希腊教父则以大马士革的约翰 (John of Damascus，约卒于754年) 为终点。

除了年代古远，或与整个教会的形成时期有直接联系以外，学识、圣洁、正统信仰，以及教会的认可或普遍的承认，也是教父所应具备的资格。然而，这些资格都只是相对的。至少，我们不能拿充分发展了的正统信仰——无论是希腊教会、罗马教会还是福音派的——作为尺度，来衡量尼西亚会议前的教父。他们的教义观念往往十分模糊而不确定。事实上，罗马教会因德尔图良的孟他努主义 (Montanism)、奥利金的柏拉图主义和唯心主义观点、优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的半亚流主义 (semi-Arianism)，将他们排除在“教父” (Patres) 的名录之外；亚历山大的革利免、拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)、狄奥多雷 (Theodoret) 及其他杰出的神学家，也同样被排除在外，仅被称为“教会作家” (Scriptores Ecclastici)。

严格说来，尼西亚会议前的教父，没有一位在所有方面都真正符合罗马教会的教义标准。即使爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和居普良也与罗马主教意见不合：前者涉及千禧年论 (Chiliasm) 和孟他努主义，后者涉及异端所施洗礼的有效性。哲罗姆是反对次经具有正典价值的有力见证。奥古斯丁是教父中大公教会神学的最高权威，然而他关于罪与恩典的见解却鲜明地具有福音派性质；路德 (Luther) 和加尔文 (Calvin) 热切地复兴了这些见解，而特伦托会议 (Council of Trent) 实际上却将其定罪。教皇大贵格利 (Gregory the Great) 斥责“普世主教”这一称号，认为它是敌基督式的僭称；然而，与其继承者的正式头衔相比，这称号还算相当无害，因为他们自称是基督的代理者、全能上帝在地上的摄政者，以及在一切信仰与教会纪律事务上绝无谬误的圣灵代言人。古代教父和教会圣师，没有一位知道现代罗马教会所谓无玷成胎（1854年）和教皇无误（1870年）的教条。除了普遍基督教最根本的信条之外，“教父的一致同意”纯属幻象。在这里，我们必须对正统信仰采取宽广的理解，并充分考虑教会中基督教教义发展所必经的进展阶段。

另一方面，教父的神学与新教的正统标准就更加不合。我们在他们中间徒然寻求圣经独一权威、唯独因信称义、平信徒皆为祭司等福音派教义；相反，我们发现，早在第二世纪，人们便高度重视教会传统、有功德乃至超额功德的善行，并表现出强烈的祭司主义、圣礼主义、仪式主义和禁欲主义倾向；这些倾向逐渐发展成熟，形成希腊和罗马两种大公教会形态。英格兰教会一向比路德宗和加尔文宗教会更同情教父，并宣称自己与东西方分裂以前古代教会的信经、主教制和礼仪崇拜完全一致；然而，这种差异只是程度上的；《三十九条信纲》(Thirty-Nine Articles) 与《奥格斯堡信纲》(Augsburg Confession) 或《威斯敏斯特准则》(Westminster standards) 一样，具有彻底的福音派性质；甚至现代的盎格鲁大公派 (Anglo-Catholic school)，这一切派别中最重教会、也最拘泥于教会形式的一派，也忽视了最初几个世纪中被视为至关重要的许多教义和惯例，却持守着另一些在第十六世纪以前尚不为人所知的主张。宗教改革者与教父同样伟大、同样良善，但双方都必须俯首于使徒之前。基督教不断向前发展，人们对其原则与能力的理解日益深入，应用也日益广泛；圣经中仍有许多隐藏的宝藏，将在未来的世代显露出来。

总的说来，教父们的长处各不相同。坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 著称的，不是天才或学问，而是族长般的质朴与尊严；罗马的革利免以治理的恩赐著称；伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 以热烈献身于主教制、教会合一和基督徒殉道著称；游斯丁以护教的热忱和广泛的阅读著称；爱任纽以纯正的教义和温和持重著称；亚历山大的革利免以启人深思的丰富思想著称；奥利金以卓越的学识和大胆的思辨著称；德尔图良以清新有力的才智和刚毅的性格著称；居普良以积极有力的教会精神著称；优西比乌以勤勉的文献编纂著称；拉克坦提乌斯则以文体的优雅著称。他们也各有弱点。在思想的深度与属灵的丰盛上，没有一位能与圣保罗或圣约翰稍作比较；全部教父文学，尽管价值不可估量，却永远远在新约之下。单单一卷《罗马书》或《约翰福音》，其价值就超过希腊和拉丁教父、经院学者及宗教改革者所写的一切注释，以及教义、论战和禁欲论著。

尼西亚会议前的教父可以分为五六类：

(1.) 使徒教父，即亲受使徒教导的门徒。其中最杰出的是坡旅甲、革利免和伊格那丢。

(2.) 面对犹太教和异教为基督教辩护的护教士：殉道者游斯丁，以及直到第二世纪末继承其事业的人。

(3.) 反对教会内部异端的论战家：第二世纪末至第三世纪初的爱任纽和希波吕托斯。

(4.) 哲学神学的亚历山大学派 (Alexandrian school)：第三世纪上半叶的革利免和奥利金。

(5.) 与之同时、但更为务实的北非学派 (North African school)，其代表是德尔图良和居普良。

(6.) 此外，还有安提阿学派 (Antiochian school) 的萌芽，以及一些无法归入任何特定类别的较次要作家。

在最初几个世纪，与教父的真作一同出现的，还有大量冒用使徒及后世名人之名的伪经福音书、行传和启示录，既有为异端服务的，也有为正统信仰服务的；此外，还有犹太人和异教徒关于基督教的预言，如《十二族长遗训》(Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)、《许达斯佩斯书》(Books of Hydaspes)、《赫尔马斯·特里斯墨吉斯托斯书》(Books of Hermas Trismegistos) 和《西比拉神谕》(Books of the Sibyls)。甚至杰出的教会教师，尤其是护教士，也常常使用这些出于空泛想象的伪造作品；这不仅表明他们极其轻信，全然缺乏文献批判能力，也表明他们的真理意识发展得很不充分，尚未学会将 pia fraus（虔诚的欺诈）视为不道德的谎言而彻底摒弃。

附注

罗马教会依据其独具大公性的主张，将教父（Patres）的行列延伸至中世纪晚期，并将安瑟伦 (Anselm)、克莱尔沃的伯尔纳 (Bernard of Clairvaux)、托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas)、波纳文图拉 (Bonaventura) 以及特伦托会议 (Council of Trent) 的神学家列入其中；她还从教父中另行区分出少数特称为“教会圣师”（Doctores ecclesiae）的人。然而，无论希腊教会还是福音派教会，都不承认她独具大公性的主张。一位教会圣师（Doctor Ecclesiae）的标志是：1）eminens eruditio，卓越的学识；2）doctrina orthodoxa，正统的教义；3）sanctitas vitae，圣洁的生活；4）expressa ecclesiae declaratio，教会的明确宣告。罗马教会承认下列希腊教父为教会圣师（Doctores Ecclesiae）：亚他那修 (Athanasius)、大巴西尔 (Basil the Great)、拿先斯的贵格利 (Gregory of Nazianzen)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、亚历山大的居里禄 (Cyril of Alexandria) 和大马士革的约翰 (John of Damascus)；拉丁教父则有安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、哲罗姆 (Jerome)、奥古斯丁 (Augustin)、普瓦捷的希拉里乌斯 (Hilarius of Poitiers)、利奥一世 (Leo I.) 和贵格利一世 (Gregory I.)，此外还有中世纪神学家安瑟伦、托马斯·阿奎那、波纳文图拉和克莱尔沃的伯尔纳。教会圣师（doctores ecclesiae）与教父（patres eccelesiae）的区别，由教皇卜尼法斯八世 (Boniface VIII.) 在1298年的一项敕令中正式确认；其中将安布罗斯、奥古斯丁、哲罗姆和大贵格利称为“大教会圣师”（magni doctores ecclesiae），认为他们配受更高程度的尊崇。1830年，教皇以敕令将托马斯·阿奎那、波纳文图拉和圣伯尔纳加入这一名单；1852年加入希拉里，1871年加入阿方索·马里亚·德·利古里 (Alfonso Maria da Liguori)。坎特伯雷的安瑟伦 (Anselm of Canterbury) 和另外少数几人，在礼仪中被称为“圣师”（doctores），却没有专门的敕令。历代教皇的漫长行列中，仅出了两位教父，即利奥一世和贵格利一世。特伦托会议首次提到“教父的一致共识”（unanimis consensus patrum），其用法与“教会的教义”（doctrina ecclesia）同义。

§ 161. 使徒教父

史料

《使徒教父著作集》(Patrum Apostolicorum Opera)。最佳版本出自以下诸人：O. 冯·格布哈特 (O. von Gebhardt)、A. 哈纳克 (A. Harnack)、Th. 察恩 (Th. Zahn)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1876–1878年，3卷（即大为改进的德雷塞尔版第三版）；Fr. Xav. 丰克 (Fr. Xav. Funk，罗马天主教徒)，图宾根 (Tüb.)，1878及1881年，2卷（即赫费勒版的第五增订版）；A. 希尔根费尔德 (A. Hilgenfeld，图宾根学派)：《正典以外所接受的新约文献》(Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum)，莱比锡，1866年，已由分册出版的修订版取代（罗马的革利免，1876年；巴拿巴，1877年；赫尔马斯，1881年）；莱特福特主教 (Bishop Lightfoot)，伦敦 (Lond.) 及剑桥 (Cambr.)，1869、1877及1885年（包括罗马的革利免、伊格那修和坡旅甲的著作，附完整的校勘资料、英译及有价值的注释；就其已出版的范围而言，总体上是最佳版本）。

较早的版本有：B. 科特莱里乌斯 (B. Cotelerius，即 Cotelier，罗马天主教徒)，巴黎 (Par.)，1672年，2卷，对开本，包括伪作；由 J. 克莱里库斯 (J. Clericus，即 Le Clerc) 重刊并编辑，安特卫普 (Antw.)，1698年，第二版，阿姆斯特丹 (Amst.)，1724年，2卷；Th. 伊蒂希 (Th. Ittig)，1699年；弗赖 (Frey)，巴塞尔 (Basel)，1742年；R. 拉塞尔 (R. Russel)，伦敦，1746年，2卷（收入真作）；霍内曼 (Hornemann)，哥本哈根 (Havniae)，1828年；Guil. 雅各布森 (Guil. Jacobson)，牛津 (Oxon.)，1838年，第四版，1866年，2卷（极为精美、准确，附有价值的注释，但仅收革利免、伊格那修、坡旅甲，以及伊格那修和坡旅甲的《殉道记》〔Martyria^*〕）；C. J. 赫费勒 (C. J. Hefele，罗马天主教徒)，图宾根，1839年，第四版，1855年，1卷（极为便用，导论和注释博学而审慎）；A. R. M. 德雷塞尔 (A. R. M. Dressel)，莱比锡，1857年，第二版，1863年（更为完备，并以新发现的抄本为依据。赫费勒和德雷塞尔的版本已由上文最先提及的两个版本取代。

《使徒教父著作》的英译本有：W. 韦克大主教 (Archbishop W. Wake，卒于1737年) 译，伦敦，1693年，第四版，1737年，此后屡次重刊（文体优美，但有许多不准确之处）；亚历克斯·罗伯茨 (Alex. Roberts) 与詹姆斯·唐纳森 (James Donaldson) 译，收入克拉克《尼西亚前基督教文库》(Ante-Nicene Christian Library) 第一卷，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1867年（准确性胜于韦克译本，古雅的英语韵味则不及）；Chs. H. 胡尔 (Chs. H. Hoole) 译，伦敦，1870及1872年；最佳者为莱特福特译本（罗马的革利免著作见1877年的附录）。另有 H. 朔尔茨 (H. Scholz) 的优秀德译本，居特斯洛 (Gütersloh)，1865年（采用路德译本圣经的文体）。

研究著作

上述各版本的导论，尤其是最先列出的四种版本的导论。

A. 施韦格勒 (A. Schwegler)：《后使徒时期》(Das nacha postolische Zeitalter)，图宾根，1846年，2卷。这是图宾根学派一部极具才力却批判过度的历史重构，充满不能成立的假说，将福音书、《使徒行传》、大公书信及保罗后期书信归于后使徒时期，并按照每位作者被假定具有的彼得派或保罗派倾向，以及他与伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 和诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 的关系，来衡量他。

A. 希尔根费尔德 (A. Hilgenfeld)：《使徒教父》(Die apostolischen Väter)。哈雷 (Halle)，1853年。

J. H. B. 吕布克特 (J. H. B. Lubkert)：《使徒教父的神学》(Die Theologie der apostolischen Väter)，载《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1854年。

弗雷佩尔神父 (Abbé Freppel，索邦大学教授)：《使徒教父及其时代》(Les Pères Apostoliques et leur epoque)，第二版，巴黎，1859年。罗马天主教立场十分鲜明。

莱希勒 (Lechler)：《使徒及后使徒时期》(Das Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalter)。斯图加特 (Stuttgart)，1857年，第476–495页；第三版，全面修订（莱比锡，1885年），第526–608页。

詹姆斯·唐纳森 (James Donaldson，法学博士)：《基督教文献批判史》等 (A Critical History of Christian Literature, etc.)，第一卷：《使徒教父》。爱丁堡，1864年。此卷亦以《使徒教父：其真作及其教义的批判性论述》(The Apostolic Fathers: A critical account of their genuine writings and of their doctrines) 为题单独出版，伦敦，1874年（412页）。未论伊格那修。这是一部诚实而稳健的新教学术著作。

乔治·A. 杰克逊 (George A. Jackson)：《使徒教父与第二世纪的护教士》(The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the Second Century)。纽约，1879年。通俗著作，附有节录（203页）。

J. M. 科特里尔 (J. M. Cotterill)：《佩雷格里努斯·普罗透斯》(Peregrinus Proteus)。爱丁堡，1879年。这是一部奇特的书，作者是一位苏格兰圣公会信徒，试图证明革利免的两封书信、《致丢格那妥书》及其他古代著作，乃亨利·斯蒂芬斯 (Henry Stephens) 等人在十六世纪文艺复兴时期炮制的文学骗局。

约瑟夫·施普林茨尔 (Josef Sprinzl，罗马天主教徒)：《使徒教父的神学》(Die Theologie der apost. Väter)。维也纳 (Wien)，1880年。试图证明使徒教父与现代梵蒂冈神学完全一致。

“使徒教父”，或更确切地说，后使徒时期的“教父”，¹是使徒之后最早的教会教师，其中一些人曾有幸亲自与使徒交往，因而成为使徒与第二世纪护教士之间的纽带。这一群体包括巴拿巴 (Barnabas)、罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)、伊格那修 (Ignatius)、坡旅甲 (Polycarp)；从较广的意义上说，还包括赫尔马斯 (Hermas)、帕皮亚 (Papias)，以及《致丢格那妥书》(Epistle to Diognetus) 和《十二使徒遗训》(Didache) 的佚名作者。

关于这些人的外在生平，他们的出身、教育及归信以前的职业，几乎一无所知。那个时代困苦的处境极不利于著述；更重要的是，原始教会的精神将基督里的新生命视为唯一真实、唯一值得记载的生命。即使关于使徒本身蒙召以前的生活，我们也只有寥寥数语的线索。但这些教父中有几位以殉道进入完全生命，其虔敬的事迹却得到了详尽的记述。他们与其说是伟人，不如说是善人；他们对基督的热忱与委身，比他们的文学造诣更为突出。他们是忠心而务实的工作者，因此，在当时对教会的益处，比深邃的思想家或伟大的学者所能带来的更大。“塔西佗 (Tacitus)、苏维托尼乌斯 (Sueton)、尤维纳利斯 (Juvenal)、马提亚尔 (Martial) 及其他同时代异教作家的著作，充斥着令人作呕的人类愚昧、恶习与罪行的细节；这些卑微的基督徒牧者，却始终燃烧着爱上帝与爱人的心，劝勉人效法基督的榜样，过纯洁圣善的生活，并在试炼和逼迫之中，从自己的信仰以及在天上享有荣耀不朽生命的盼望中，得到充沛的力量和安慰。”²

使徒教父现存的著作篇幅不大，只有少数论圣洁生活与离世的书信，合起来约为《新约》篇幅的两倍。其中一半（伊格那修的几封书信、《巴拿巴书信》和《赫尔马斯牧人书》）的真实性尚有疑问；但无论如何，它们都属于第一世纪末至第二世纪中叶之间那个幽暗而神秘的过渡时期。它们都不是出于学术研究，而是出于实际的宗教情感；其内容与其说是教义分析，不如说是朴实直接的信仰宣告与圣洁生活的劝勉；除《赫尔马斯牧人书》和《十二使徒遗训》(Didache) 外，全都仿照保罗书信的形式写成。³然而，这些著作已经显出护教学、论战神学、教义神学和伦理神学的萌芽，以及古代大公教会组织与礼仪的轮廓。批判研究必须在教会外在与内在的发展中，为它们确定应有的位置；进行这项工作时，需要极其谨慎，免得作出任意的建构。

若将这些文献与《新约》正典圣经相比，便立刻可见，它们在原创的力量、属灵的深度与丰盛上都远为逊色，因而间接地有力证明了使徒所受的默示。然而，它们仍闪耀着使徒时代这一天的晚霞，洋溢着纯朴信仰的热忱，以及对主炽热的爱与忠诚；这种热忱在苦难与殉道中证明了自己的力量。它们置身于活的传统之中，提及使徒口头宣讲的次数，比提及使徒著作的次数更多，因为那些著作当时流传尚不普遍；然而，它们偶尔的引用或暗指，以及其回忆与福音历史事实和《新约》基本教义的一致，仍为使徒著作的真实性提供了同样宝贵的见证。巴拿巴、革利免和坡旅甲的书信，以及《赫尔马斯牧人书》，曾在许多教会的公共礼拜中宣读。⁴其中有些甚至被收入重要的圣经抄本。⁵这表明，教会对于正典范围的认识，尚未在各处都变得清晰。不过，它们的权威始终只是局部的，并且从属于福音书及使徒书信的权威。教会出于健全的直觉，将使徒门徒的著作排除在《新约》正典之外，惟独马可和路加的著作例外，因为他们与彼得和保罗有特别密切的联系。依照历史主宰智慧的安排，使徒所受的默示与后继时代所受的光照之间，圣经作为准则的权威与教会教导所具有的派生效力之间，有一道不可逾越的鸿沟。借用一位杰出作家的比喻，⁶“圣经不像现代欧洲的城市，经过郊外的花园、树林与宅邸，逐渐融入周围的旷野；它倒像沙漠中的东方城市，旅人只须跨出一步，便进入荒凉的不毛之地。”这些后使徒时期著作本身的贫乏，反而向使徒诸书取之不尽的丰富致敬；使徒诸书如同基督的位格一样，在起源、性质和功效上，既是属人的，也是属神的。⁷

§ 162. 罗马的革利免

(I.) 《罗马的革利免致哥林多人书》(The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to the Corinthians)。只有第一封是真作，所谓《革利免第二书信》是一篇年代较晚的讲道。最佳版本出自以下诸人：菲洛提奥斯·布里恩尼奥斯 (Philotheos Bryennios)（Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Κλήμεντος ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης αἱ δύο πρὸς Καρινθίους ἐπιστολαί^* 等。Ἐν Κωνσταντινοπόλει^*，1875年。附导论、注释，书末有摹真图版；正文188页，导论ρξθʹ^*，即169页）；希尔根费尔德（第二版，莱比锡，1876年，附导论、文本注释及推定校读）；冯·格布哈特与哈纳克（第二版，1876年，附导论、注释及拉丁文译本）；丰克（1878年，附拉丁文译本及注释）；莱特福特（附注释，伦敦，1869年；另有1877年的附录，收入新发现的部分及英译本）。

自尤尼乌斯 (Junius) 于1633年首次刊布亚历山大抄本以来，据此编成的所有旧版，如今都因君士坦丁堡一部新而完整的抄本的发现而部分失去原有地位；这一发现标志着教会史这一篇章中的一个新纪元。

(II.) R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《罗马的革利免致哥林多人第一书考论》(De Clementis Rom. Epistola ad Corinth. priore disquisitio)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1856年（188页）。另参他在《耶拿文学报》(Jenaer Literaturzeitung) 1877年1月13日发表的近期版本书评。

B. H. 考珀 (B. H. Cowper)：《罗马第一任主教的教导：罗马的革利免致哥林多人书，附导论及注释》(What the First Bishop of Rome taught. The Ep. of Clement of R. to the Cor., with an Introduction and Notes)。伦敦，1867年。

Jos. 穆卢利 (Jos. Mullooly)：《教皇与殉道者圣革利免及其在罗马的巴西利卡教堂》(St. Clement Pope and Martyr, and his Basilica in Rome)。罗马，第二版，1873年。另有意大利文版。讨论据称属于革利免的住宅和巴西利卡教堂，但不论及他的著作。

雅可比 (Jacobi)：《罗马的革利免的两封书信》(Die beiden Briefe des Clemens v. Rom.)，载《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken)，1876年，第707页及后。

丰克 (Funk)：《一项神学发现》(Ein theologischer Fund)，载图宾根《神学季刊》(Theol. Quartalschrift)，1876年，第286页及后。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)：《新发现的罗马的革利免抄本》(The New MS. of Clement of Rome)。载《神学评论》(Theolog. Review)，1877年，第35页及后。

维泽勒 (Wieseler)：《罗马的革利免致哥林多人书》(Der Brief des röm. Clemens an die Kor.)，载《德国神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol.)，1877年，第III期。

勒南 (Renan)：《福音书》(Les évangiles)。巴黎，1877年，第xv章，第311–338页。

C. J. H. 罗普斯 (C. J. H. Ropes)：《新发现的罗马的革利免抄本》(The New MS. of Clement of Rome)，载《长老会季刊与普林斯顿评论》(Presb. Quarterly and Princeton Review)。纽约，1877年，第325–343页。内有对新异读的精深考察，并将结尾的祷文与古代礼仪作了比较。

另见以下著作中的相关部分：希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)（《使徒教父》[Apost. Väter]，第85–92页）；唐纳森（《使徒教父》[Ap. Fath.]，第113–190页）；施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl)（《使徒教父神学》[Theol. d. Apost. Väter]，第21页及后、第57页及后）；萨蒙 (Salmon) 在史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 所编著作中的条目，第I卷，第554页及后；以及乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn) 在赫尔佐格第二版 (Herzog²) 中的“罗马的革利免”(Clemens Rom.) 条，第III卷，第248–257页。

关于1875年以前及以后革利免著作的版本、译本与研究的完整目录，参冯·格布哈特与哈纳克所编版本的《绪论》，第XVIII–XXIV页；丰克，第XXXII–XXXVI页；莱特福特，第28页及后、第223页及后、第393页及后；以及理查森 (Richardson)，《概要》(Synopsis)，第I页及后。

在后使徒时期的著作中，首位当归于1883年发现的《使徒遗训》(Teaching of the Apostles)。⁸其次便是革利免、伊格那修 (Ignatius) 和坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的书信。

I. 革利免这个名字在古代享有盛誉；他是保罗和彼得的门徒，并称他们为最值得效法的榜样。他可能就是保罗所提到的、在腓立比忠心与他同工的那个人（《腓立比书》4:3）；也可能是一个罗马人，以某种方式与显赫的弗拉维家族 (Flavian family) 有联系，并通过这个家族与皇室相连；基督教很早便在皇室中找到了立足之地。⁹他的书信表明，他具有古典文化修养、治理的智慧，并且十分熟悉《七十士译本》圣经。最后这一点似乎表明，他出身于犹太家庭。¹⁰我们确实知道的只有这一点：第一世纪末，他是罗马会众的领袖。然而，关于他任职的时期，传统本身却相互矛盾：有时说他是彼得的第一位继任者，有时又说是第三位，后者较为可信。据优西比乌 (Eusebius) 记载，他从图密善在位第十二年直到图拉真 (Trajan) 在位第三年担任主教（公元92至101年）。考虑到他在世时，主教与长老之间的职分区别尚未明确界定，他可能与利努斯 (Linus) 和阿纳克勒图斯 (Anacletus) 同任长老；有人将这两人列为他的前任，也有人将他们列为他的继任者。¹¹

后来的传说，为了大公教会和异端各自的利益，都以传奇色彩装点了他的一生。这些传说描绘他是一个出身高贵、学识渊博的罗马人，因不满异教的智慧与艺术，便远赴巴勒斯坦，在那里结识使徒彼得，并因他而归信；随后陪伴彼得四处传道，以彼得的名义撰写许多书籍；又由彼得指定为罗马主教的继任者，对全教会享有某种监督权；最后，在图拉真统治下被放逐到陶里克的克尔松尼斯 (Taurian Chersonesus)，在海涛中光荣殉道。然而，直到优西比乌和哲罗姆为止，最早的见证者对他的殉道都一无所知。《革利免殉道行传》(Acta Martyrii Clementis)（由西缅·梅塔弗拉斯特斯 [Simon Metaphrastes] 撰写）直到第九世纪才出现。这些记述纯属虚构，将令人难以置信的神迹归于书中的主人公。

此人在真实历史与虚构故事中都具有如此巨大的影响，他的话被奉为律法，他向一个独立而纷争不休的教会宣讲顺服与谦卑的本分，他的视野甚至远及西海彼岸的未知之地；而正是这样一个人，在第二世纪的门槛上，开启了绵延不绝的教皇世系。这一世系比欧洲任何王朝都更为长久，如今还声称对两亿基督徒的良心拥有无误的权威。这实在令人深思。¹²

这位革利免留给我们一封用希腊文写给哥林多人的书信。教父们常常引用此书，后来它却失传了；直到人们在《圣经》亚历山大抄本（现藏大英博物馆）中，将它与第二封书信的残篇一同重新发现，帕特里基乌斯·尤尼乌斯 (Patricius Junius，即帕特里克·杨 [Patrick Young]) 才于1633年在牛津将其刊布。¹³第二部抄本的年代稍晚，出自十一世纪，却更加完整，包含第一封书信中原先缺失的各章（其中有现存最古老的书面祷文），以及第二封书信的全文（并有其他珍贵文献）；菲洛提奥斯·布里恩尼奥斯 (Philotheos Bryennios)¹⁴ 在君士坦丁堡耶路撒冷牧首的修道院藏书中发现了这部抄本，并于1875年刊布。¹⁵此后不久，人们又在巴黎的朱尔·莫尔 (Jules Mohl，卒于1876年) 的藏书中发现了一个叙利亚文译本。¹⁶这样，我们便有了三个独立的文本（A、C、S），它们似乎源自第二世纪的一个共同祖本。正如我们在前面各章所指出的，这些新发现的部分，为教皇权威史及礼仪崇拜史带来了新的亮光。¹⁷

这第一封（事实上也是唯一的一封）《致哥林多人书》，是罗马上帝的教会主动发起、未经请求，派三位年老而忠信的基督徒——克劳狄·以弗布斯 (Claudius Ephebus)、瓦莱里乌斯·比通 (Valerius Biton) 和福图纳图斯 (Fortunatus)——送给哥林多上帝的教会的。¹⁸信中没有署革利免的名字，而是以罗马会众的名义写成，但普遍被认为出自他的手笔。¹⁹此书在古代极受推崇，直到第四世纪初，哥林多教会及其他几个教会仍在公共聚会中宣读。²⁰这就解释了它为何被收入《圣经》亚历山大抄本；不过，它被恰当地置于《启示录》之后，与使徒书信分开。

这也表明了它的价值。它不是使徒的作品，也不是受默示而写的——远非如此——但就形式与内容而言，却是紧接使徒时期的著作中最古老、最优秀的一部。此书的起因是哥林多教会中的党派分歧与争吵；保罗在第一封书信中曾严厉斥责的宗派精神，又在那里爆发，竟使正式任职的教会领袖（长老兼主教）遭到罢黜。作者劝勉读者效法基督及其使徒，尤其是彼得和保罗，追求和睦、爱心、谦卑与圣洁；这两位使徒不久以前才以自己的血印证了所作的见证。他以极高的赞辞论到保罗，说他“将公义教导全〔罗马〕世界，到了西方的尽头，又在掌权者面前作了见证之后，便离世进入圣所，留下了忍耐坚守的至大榜样”。²¹他显出罗马教会在其原初纯朴状态下的沉静尊严与治理智慧，而没有圣统制的傲慢；那场尼禄的逼迫几乎必定使罗马教会濒于灭绝，然而她竟从如此可怕的试炼中迅速恢复过来，实在令人惊异。他诉诸上帝的话，以之为最终权威，但引用次经时，也像引用正典圣经（《七十士译本》）一样自如。他随处以自由转述的方式追忆基督与使徒的教训。²²他提及保罗的《哥林多前书》，并表现出对保罗诸书信、《雅各书》、《彼得前书》，尤其是《希伯来书》的深切熟悉；他从后者借用了若干措辞。因此，他与保罗、巴拿巴和路加一同，被列为这封匿名书信的可能作者之一。俄利根 (Origen) 推测，革利免或路加是在保罗的启发或口授之下写成《希伯来书》的。

革利免清楚地见证了三位一体的教义（“上帝、主耶稣基督和圣灵，乃是选民的信仰与盼望”），也见证了基督的神性尊荣与荣耀、唯独靠他的血得救、悔改与活泼信心的必要性、靠恩典称义、借圣灵成圣、教会的合一，以及谦卑、仁爱、宽容、忍耐、恒心等基督徒美德。他劝勉信徒为执政者祷告，愿上帝“赐他们健康、平安、和睦与稳固，使他们得以治理他所交托的政权”；这与图密善所行的血腥暴虐形成鲜明的对照。²³在这里，我们听到了保罗在暴君尼禄统治下劝勉罗马人的回声（《罗马书》13章）。总而言之，革利免的这封书信，虽在独创的纯朴、简练和力量上远逊于使徒的著作，却仍不愧为使徒门徒的作品。

就神学而言，这封书信显然属于保罗的学派，与《希伯来书》十分相似，同时也显露出彼得的影响；事实上，这两位使徒都曾亲自在罗马教会劳苦作工，并在这封以该教会名义写成的书信上留下了他们思想的印记。书中丝毫没有保罗派与彼得派相互对立的痕迹。²⁴在使徒教父中，除了坡旅甲或可例外，革利免是唯一对保罗因信称义的教义有所领会的人。他说：²⁵“他们〔旧约的圣徒〕众人得以伟大而荣耀，不是凭自己，不是靠行为，也不是靠自己的义，而是凭上帝的旨意。同样，我们这些照上帝旨意在基督耶稣里蒙召的人，得以称义也不是出于自己，不是借着我们的智慧、悟性、敬虔，也不是借着我们以清洁的心所行的事，而是借着信；全能的上帝从起初就借这信称这一切人为义。愿荣耀归给他，直到永永远远。”随后，革利免正如保罗在《罗马书》第6章所做的那样，从称义引出成圣，继续说道：“那么，亲爱的弟兄们，我们当怎样行呢？难道我们应当懒于行善，忽略爱心吗？断乎不可！我们倒要热心奋勇，赶快成就各样善工。因为万物的创造主和主宰，自己也喜悦他所作的工。”在善行之中，他尤其颂扬爱，并以令人想起保罗《哥林多前书》第13章的笔调描绘它：“在基督里有爱的人，便遵守基督的诫命。谁能述说上帝之爱的联结，又道尽其美丽的伟大呢？爱所引人达到的高处，是言语不能形容的。爱使我们与上帝联合；遮掩许多的罪；凡事包容，凡事忍耐。爱里面没有卑劣，也没有骄傲。爱不知分裂，不悖逆，凡事和谐而行。上帝的一切选民，都在爱中得以完全。没有爱，就没有什么能蒙上帝喜悦。主在爱中接纳了我们；我们的主耶稣基督，因着他对我们所怀的爱，遵照上帝的旨意，为我们舍了他的血，以他的肉身替代我们的肉身，以他的灵魂替代我们的灵魂。”²⁶因此，他才如此热切地维护教会的合一。“你们中间为什么有争论、愤怒、不和、分裂与争战呢？我们岂不是只有一位上帝、一位基督、一位浇灌在我们身上的圣灵，以及在基督里同蒙的一个呼召吗？我们为什么撕裂、割断基督的肢体，使身体内部彼此扰乱，又迷误到这般地步，竟忘记我们是互为肢体的呢？”²⁷

他也极其优美地从宇宙的和谐引申出敦促人和睦的劝勉，并在这里顺带表达了一个引人注目的见解，或许是受亚特兰蒂斯 (Atlantis)、orbis alter（另一个世界）、ultima Thule（极远之地）等古老传说的启发：在那无法逾越的海洋之外，还有别的世界，同样受主的律法治理。²⁸

然而，尽管这封书信总体上具有保罗的特色，它仍多少降低了这位外邦人使徒的神学所具有的自由福音精神，缓和了其中反对犹太主义的严峻态度，并将其与雅各所代表的犹太基督徒思想结合起来；这表明，到第一世纪末，保罗与彼得两种观点之间的冲突，在罗马教会以及哥林多教会中，已基本得到解决。

革利免对凌驾于长老职分之上的主教职分一无所知；他的书信本身也不是以他自己的名义，而是以罗马教会的名义写成的。但他把利未祭司职分视为基督教教导职分的预表，并以极其坚决的态度坚持外在的合一、固定的秩序，以及对教会领袖的顺服。他以权威的口吻向一个由使徒建立的姊妹教会说话，由此显露出教皇制那自然而尚属无害的开端。²⁹他死后一百年，他的继任者竟敢以自己的名义，不但发出劝勉，而且为了细小的分歧，将整个教会逐出教会。

革利免与保罗之间的距离，以及从使徒的事物转向伪经的事物、从信仰转向迷信的过渡，显明于他不加分辨地使用犹太次经，也显明于保罗与这位门徒在处理对复活的怀疑时所采取的不同方式。³⁰革利免不但指出自然界中的预表，如四季的更替、昼夜的交替，还十分认真地援引异教神话中阿拉伯的神鸟不死鸟 (phoenix)，说它每五百年便重生一次。传说是这样的：不死鸟临近死亡时，就用乳香、没药和其他香料为自己筑巢；它腐烂的肉中生出一只有翅膀的虫，待到强壮之后，就把那使它再生的巢从阿拉伯带到埃及的赫利奥波利斯 (Heliopolis)，在那里于白昼飞下，在众目睽睽之下，将巢连同前代不死鸟的骸骨放在太阳的祭坛上。按照祭司们的计算，这事每五百年发生一次。在革利免之后，其他教父也曾以不死鸟作为复活的象征。³¹

至于写作的时间，这封书信肯定是在彼得和保罗死后写成的，因为它颂扬了他们的殉道；也很可能是在约翰死后（约98年）；因为我们可以设想，倘若约翰仍然在世，革利免出于对更高权威的敬重，理应提及他，而哥林多的基督徒也会向一位使徒寻求指教，而不是求助于远在罗马的使徒门徒。书信开头所提到的逼迫，既指图密善的逼迫，也指尼禄的逼迫；因为他说到“突然且接连临到我们的灾难与变故”。³²他审慎地避免指名那些施行逼迫的皇帝，并在结尾为执政者代求。此外，他称当时的哥林多教会为“根基稳固而古老”的教会。³³优西比乌 (Eusebius) 所记革利免直到92或93年才登上罗马主教之位，也与这一年代相符。³⁴

§ 163. 伪克莱门著作

革利免真作与伪作最完备的合集，见米涅 (Migne) 的《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Graeca)，第I、II卷。

后来有若干著作，无论正统的还是异端的，都假托革利免之名，以借其名望和地位的分量而更广泛地流传。这些伪克莱门著作在罗马教会中取代了革利免唯一的真作；随着希腊语知识的消失，那部真作也被遗忘了。这些著作如下：

一封被误称为《哥林多后书》的作品，以前只知道其中一部分（12章），自1875年起才有全文（20章）。³⁵它在内容和文体上都远逊于《前书》，年代也较晚，在120至140年之间，可能写于哥林多；因此，它在抄本中与《前书》相连。³⁶它根本不是书信，而是一篇向“弟兄姊妹”宣讲的讲道。它是现知使徒以后讲道的最古老范例，其重要性和价值仅在于此。³⁷它诚恳地劝人将基督教信仰付诸实行，并在逼迫中持守忠信，虽然措辞略显乏力；同时，它也反驳诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 对复活的否认。其思想是正统的，称基督为“上帝和审判活人死人的主”，并用以下话语论述他所成就的伟大道德变革（《哥林多后书》第1章）：“我们缺乏悟性，敬拜木石、金银铜器，都是人手所造的；我们整个生命无非是死亡……借着耶稣基督，我们得以看见，照着他的旨意，脱去了笼罩我们的云雾。他怜悯地拯救了我们……我们尚未存在时，他便呼召我们，并且定意使我们从无有而成为真实的存在。”
两封《论童贞》的通函。J. J. 韦特斯坦 (J. J. Wetstein) 首先在阿姆斯特丹 (Amsterdam) 抗辩派 (Remonstrants) 的图书馆中发现了它们，所据为一部抄于公元1470年的叙利亚语译本，并于1752年将其作为附录，收入他那部著名的希腊文新约。³⁸这两封信赞扬独身生活，并向男女苦修者提出劝勉和规条。它们表明，一种与使徒教导和实践格格不入的禁欲主义，很早便发展起来了。虽然有些罗马天主教神学家仍主张其出自革利免，³⁹另一些人却以更有力的论据，将其年代定在第二世纪中叶或末叶。⁴⁰
《使徒宪章与法规》(Apostolical Constitutions and Canons)。⁴¹所谓《圣革利免礼仪》(Liturgia S. Clementis)，是《宪章》第八卷的一部分。
《伪克莱门文献》(Pseudo-Clementina)，即二十篇伊便尼派 (Ebionitic) 的《讲道集》，以及由其改写而成的大公教会版本《辨认集》(Recognitions)。⁴²
五封教令书信，伪伊西多尔 (pseudo-Isidore) 将它们置于其合集之首。其中两封是写给主的兄弟雅各的，早于伪伊西多尔，出自第二或第三世纪；其余三封则由他伪造。它们构成了中世纪最庞大、最胆大妄为的文献伪作——《伊西多尔教令集》(Isidorian Decretals)——的基础，为教皇圣统制的目的效劳。⁴³第一封《致雅各书》叙述彼得任命革利免继承其罗马主教之位，并附有关于教会职员的职能及教会一般治理的指示。第二封《致雅各书》涉及圣餐的施行、教会器具以及其他礼仪事项。它们附在伪克莱门《讲道集》和《辨认集》之中。但值得注意的是，在《讲道集》中，耶路撒冷的雅各竟是罗马的彼得的上级，彼得必须向他报告自己的作为，并将讲章交给他妥善保管。

§ 164. 安提阿的伊格纳修 (Ignatius of Antioch)

参见本卷§§ 17、45。

史料

I. 书信。

W. 库尔顿 (W. Cureton)：《圣伊格纳修致圣坡旅甲、以弗所人与罗马人书信的古叙利亚语译本》(The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius to S. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans)。附译文与注释。伦敦 (Lond.) 与柏林 (Berl.)，1845年。亦见莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，II. 659–676。

C. C. J. 本森 (C. C. J. Bunsen)：《安提阿的伊格纳修的三封真信与四封伪信：复原及比较文本，附注释》(Die 3 ächten u. die 4 unächten Briefe des Ignatius von Ant. Hergestellter u. verqleichender Text mit Anmerkk.)。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1847年。

W. 库尔顿 (W. Cureton)：《伊格纳修文集》(Corpus Ignatianum)：收录伊格纳修书信的真本、增补本与伪作的完整合集；并附截至第十世纪教会作家所引的大量摘录；以叙利亚文、希腊文和拉丁文刊行，另附叙利亚文本的英文译文、详尽注释与导论。伦敦 (Lond.) 与柏林 (Berl.)，1849年。

J. H. 彼得曼 (J. H. Petermann)：《传为圣伊格纳修所作的书信及其殉道记，参校希腊文各版及叙利亚文、亚美尼亚文、拉丁文诸译本》(S. Ignatii quae feruntur Epistolae, una cum ejusdem martyrio, collatis edd. Graecis, versionibusque Syriaca, Armeniaca, Latinis.)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1849年。

特奥德·察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《伊格纳修与坡旅甲的书信、殉道记及残篇》(Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae, Martyria, Fragmenta.)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1876年（格布哈特、哈纳克与察恩〔Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn〕所编《使徒教父著作集》〔Patrum Apostolorum Opera〕的第二部分）。这是希腊文短本最好的校勘版。丰克 (Funk) 承认其优越性（“non hesitans dico, textum quem exhibuit Zahn, prioribus longe praestare.”——“我毫不犹豫地说，察恩所提供的文本远胜于先前各本。”《序论》〔Prol.〕，第lxxv页）。

Fr. Xav. 丰克 (Fr. Xav. Funk)：《使徒教父著作集》(Opera Patrum Apost.)，第I卷。图宾根 (Tub.)，1878年。

J. B. 莱特福特 (J. B. Lightfoot)：《使徒教父》(The Apost. Fathers.)，第II部分，第I、II卷。伦敦 (Lond.)，1885年。伊格纳修全部书信（叙利亚文本及希腊文两种修订本）的英文译本，有罗伯茨 (Roberts)、唐纳森 (Donaldson) 与克朗比 (Crombie) 所译、收入克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚会议前文库》(“Ante-Nicene Library”，1867年) 的版本，以及莱特福特的译本（1885年）。

较早的英文译本有惠斯顿 (Whiston，1711年) 和克莱门特森 (Clementson，1827年) 的译本。

德文译本有 M. I. 沃赫尔 (M. I. Wocher，1829年) 和 Jos. 尼尔施尔 (Jos. Nirschl) 的译本（《圣伊格纳修的书信及其殉道记》〔Die Briefe des heil. Ign. und sein Martyrium〕，1870年）。

殉道记。

《圣伊格纳修殉道行传》(Acta Martyrii S. Ignatii，Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Ἰγνατίου τοῦ θεοφόρου^*)，编者有厄舍 (Ussher，据两个拉丁文抄本，1647年)、科特利耶 (Cotelier，希腊文，1672年)、吕纳尔 (Ruinart，1689年)、格拉贝 (Grabe)、伊蒂希 (Ittig)、史密斯 (Smith)、加兰迪 (Gallandi)、雅各布森 (Jacobson)、黑费勒 (Hefele)、德雷塞尔 (Dressel)、库尔顿 (Cureton)、默辛格 (Mösinger)、彼得曼 (Petermann)、察恩 (Zahn，第301页及后)、丰克 (Funk，I. 254–265；II. 218–275) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot，II. 473–536)。库尔顿刊行过一个叙利亚语译本（《伊格纳修文集》〔Corpus Ignat.〕，222–225、252–255），默辛格又刊行了更完整的版本（《伊格纳修文集补编》〔Supplementum Corporis Ignat.〕，1872年）。彼得曼于1849年刊行过一部亚美尼亚文《殉道记》。《科尔贝尔殉道记》(Martyrium Colbertinum，据巴黎的科尔贝尔抄本〔codex Colbertinus〕) 共七章。另有几种较晚而彼此不一致的修订本，其中有许多增补。《伊格纳修行传》自称由他的两位执事兼旅伴写成；但优西比乌不知道这些文献，它们与书信相矛盾，充满不合史实的陈述，且各种译本彼此冲突。因此，近代新教批评家拒绝接受它们；甚至最新的罗马天主教编者也承认，它们必定写于第二世纪之后。很可能不早于第五世纪。参见察恩的考证，Ign. v. Ant.，第1–74页；丰克，Proleg.，第lxxix页及后；以及莱特福特，II. 363–536。

有关伊格纳修的教父记载，汇集于库尔顿、本森、彼得曼、察恩（第326–381页）及莱特福特（I. 127–221）的著作中。

批判性讨论

约翰·达莱乌斯 (Joh. Dallaeus，Daillé)：《论以亚略巴古的狄奥尼修及伊格纳修之名流传的著作，二卷》(De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii nominibus circumferuntur, libri duo)。日内瓦 (Genev.)，1666年。反对其真实性。

J. 皮尔逊 (J. Pearson)：《伊格纳修辩护》(Vindiciae Ignatianae.)。剑桥 (Cambr.)，1672年。亦收入克莱里克 (Cleric.) 所编《使徒教父》(Patres Apost.)，II. 250–440，以及米涅的《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，第V卷。后由 E. 丘顿 (E. Churton)* 加注重刊，收入《盎格鲁大公教会文库》(Anglo-Cath. Library)，牛津 (Oxf.)，1852年，2卷。

R. 罗特 (R. Rothe)：《基督教会的起源》(Anfänge der christl. Kirche.*)。维滕贝格 (Wittenb.)，1837年，第I卷，第715页及后。支持希腊文短本。

冯·本森男爵 (Baron von Bunsen，当时为普鲁士驻英国大使)：《安提阿的伊格纳修及其时代：致尼安德博士的七封书信》(Ignatius von Ant. u. seine Zeit. 7 Sendschreiben an Dr. Neander.)。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1847年。支持叙利亚语译本。

鲍尔 (Baur)：《伊格纳修书信及其最新批评者》(Die Ignatianischen Briefe u. ihr neuster Kritiker.)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1848年。反对本森，并反对所有修订本的真实性。

登青格 (Denzinger，罗马天主教徒)：《论伊格纳修书信现行文本的真实性》(Ueber die Aechtheit des bisherigen Textes der Ignatian. Briefe.)。维尔茨堡 (Würzb.)，1849年。

G. 乌尔霍恩 (G. Uhlhorn)：《伊格纳修书信叙利亚文修订本与希腊文短本的关系》(Das Verhältniss der syrischen Recension der Ignatian. Br. zu der kürzeren griechischen.*)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1851年（载《历史神学杂志》〔“Zeitschr. für Hist. Theol.”〕）；又见其发表于赫尔措格 (Herzog)《神学百科全书》(Theol. Encykl.) 的“伊格纳修”条，第vi卷（1856年），第623页及后，以及第二版，第vi卷，688–694。支持希腊文短本。

蒂尔施 (Thiersch)：《使徒时期的教会》(Kirche im Apost. Zeitalter.)。法兰克福与埃尔朗根 (Frankf. u. Erl.)，1852年，第320页及后。

利普修斯 (Lipsius)：《论伊格纳修书信叙利亚文修订本的真实性》(Ueber die Aechtheit der syr. Recens. der Ignat. Br.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1856年（载尼德纳〔Niedner〕的《历史神学杂志》〔“Zeitschr. für Hist. Theol.”〕）。支持叙利亚语译本。但他后来在希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的《学术神学杂志》(“Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol.”)，1874年，第211页，改变了自己的看法。

沃谢 (Vaucher)：《安提阿的伊格纳修书信批判研究》(Recherches critiques sur les lettres d’gnace d’Antioche.)。日内瓦 (Genève)，1856年。

默克斯 (Merx)：《伊格纳修研究》(Meletemata Ignatiana.)。哈雷 (Hal.)，1861年。

特奥德·察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《安提阿的伊格纳修》(Ignatius von Antiochien.*)。哥达 (Gotha)，1873年。（631页。）支持希腊文短本。这是最出色的辩护。参其1876年版的导论 (Proleg.)。

勒南 (Renan)：《福音书》(Les Évangiles)（1877年），第xxii章，485–498页，以及导言，第x页及后。另参他发表于1874年《学者杂志》(“Journal des Savants”) 的察恩书评。他否认除《致罗马人书》以外所有书信的真实性。答辩见察恩，导论 (Proleg.)，第x页。

F. X. 丰克 (F. X. Funk)：《伊格纳修书信的真实性》(Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe.)。图宾根 (Tübingen)，1883年。

莱特福特 (Lightfoot)：《圣保罗致腓立比人书》(St. Paul’s Ep. to the Philippians)（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1873年），论基督教教职的附论，第208–911、232–236页。“伊格纳修书信的希腊文短本很可能已遭窜改，或属伪作；但从内部证据来看，这一修订本的形成几乎不可能晚于第二世纪中叶。”（第210页。）他在第232页的注释中表示，与利普修斯 (Lipsius) 一样，他倾向于叙利亚文短本。但此后他已改变看法，转而支持希腊文短本。见其《圣伊格纳修与圣坡旅甲》(S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp)，伦敦，1885年，第I卷，315–414页。他重申并加强了察恩的论据。

R. 特拉弗斯·史密斯法政牧师 (Canon R. Travers Smith)：《圣伊格纳修》(St. Ignatius)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，第III卷（1882年），209–223页。支持希腊文短本。

关于年代问题

约斯·尼尔施尔 (Jos. Nirschl)：《安提阿的伊格纳修的卒年与图拉真皇帝的三次东方远征》(Das Todesjahr des Ignatius v. A. und die drei oriental. Feldzüge des Kaisers Trajan)（1869年）；阿道夫·哈纳克 (Adolf Harnack)：《伊格纳修的年代及安提阿历任主教直至提兰努斯的年表》(Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der Antiochenischen Bischöfe bis Tyrannus)（莱比锡〔Leipzig〕，1878年）；以及维斯勒 (Wiessler)：《凯撒诸帝对基督徒的逼迫》(Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren)（居特斯洛〔Gütersloh〕，1878年），第125页及后。

关于伊格纳修 (Ignatius) 的神学，参默勒 (Möhler)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、察恩 (Zahn，第422–494页)、尼尔施尔和施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl) 著作中的有关部分。

I. 伊格纳修的生平。

伊格纳修，别号提奥福罗斯 (Theophorus)，⁴⁴在第一世纪末、第二世纪初领导安提阿 (Antioch) 教会，因此与罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 和耶路撒冷的西面 (Simeon of Jerusalem) 同属一个时代。安提阿教会是外邦基督教的母会；这座城也是罗马帝国的第二大城。大批基督徒和形形色色的异端倾向汇集于此，促使教义与组织极其迅速地发展。

与罗马的情形一样，关于安提阿最初的主教传承，传统记载各不相同：有的说伊格纳修是彼得之后该教会的第二任主教，有的说是第一任；有时称他为彼得的门徒，有时又说是保罗或约翰的门徒。《使徒宪章》(Apostolic Constitutions) 暗示，埃沃迪乌斯 (Evodius) 和伊格纳修曾同时主持该教会，前者由彼得按立，后者由保罗按立。⁴⁵巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 等人推想，其中一位是犹太归信者的主教，另一位则是外邦归信者的主教。蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 试图以一个假说调和这些互相矛盾的记载：彼得立埃沃迪乌斯为长老，保罗立伊格纳修为长老，后来约翰又按立伊格纳修为主教。但伊格纳修本人和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 都未说过他曾为使徒的门徒；至于哲罗姆 (Jerome) 和《科尔贝殉道记》(Martyrium Colbertinum) 所作的见证，说他与坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 同为圣约翰的门徒，则与《伊格纳修致坡旅甲书》相矛盾；按照这封信的记载，他是在前往罗马途中到达士每拿 (Smyrna) 时才认识坡旅甲的。⁴⁶据后来的传说，伊格纳修是圣乐最早的倡导者，并在安提阿引入了交替对唱。

然而，在古代教会眼中，他独有的荣耀在于他的殉道。《圣伊格纳修殉道记》(Martyrium S. Ignatii) 各种版本中关于此事的详细记述，含有许多出于虔诚欺诳与想象的润饰；但殉道本身的事实，却得到普遍传统的证实。按照叙利亚语译本，伊格纳修本人在《致罗马人书》中说：“从叙利亚到罗马，水上陆上，白昼黑夜，我都在与野兽搏斗，锁链把我拴在十只豹子〔士兵〕身旁；⁴⁷向他们表示善意，反使他们更加凶恶。然而，他们的恶行对我这作门徒的倒有益处；但我并不因此称义。但愿我能以那为我预备好的野兽为乐。我祈求它们确已为我预备好了。不仅如此，我还要逗引它们，使它们迅速吞吃我，不要像对待某些人那样，因惧怕而不肯碰我。是的，它们若不情愿这样做，我就要强使它们这样做。”

他的《殉道行传》记述得更为详尽，说伊格纳修在图拉真 (Trajan) 皇帝在位第九年（107–108年），被带到安提阿的皇帝面前，因身为基督徒而被判死刑，随后戴着锁链押往罗马，在那里被投入圆形竞技场 (Coliseum) 中喂狮子，供民众娱乐；他的遗骸则被当作无价之宝运回安提阿。⁴⁸这次押送或可解释为意在冷却这位主教的热忱，恐吓沿途其他基督徒，并防止安提阿教会爆发狂热行动。⁴⁹但这项记载中的年代部分存在困难。据钱币和其他古代文献所能提供的知识，图拉真在远征帕提亚 (Parthia) 时，直到114或115年才来到安提阿。因此，我们必须把殉道日期推迟，⁵⁰或者作一个更为可能的假定：伊格纳修根本未曾在皇帝本人面前受审，而是在皇帝的总督面前受审。⁵¹优西比乌、金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 及其他古代见证人，都没有提及皇帝的审判；而《致罗马人书》反倒暗示，伊格纳修根本不是由皇帝定罪的；否则，他禁止他们为自己求情，也就毫无用处了。下级法庭的判决尚可上诉，皇帝的判决却不能。

他的书信。

伊格纳修主教在前往罗马的途中，以耶稣基督囚徒的身份，写了七封书信给各地教会，其中大多位于小亚细亚。优西比乌和哲罗姆按以下次序排列这些书信：（1）致以弗所人；（2）致马格尼西亚人 (Magnesians)；（3）致特拉勒人 (Trallians)；（4）致罗马人；（5）致非拉铁非人；（6）致士每拿人；（7）致士每拿主教坡旅甲。前四封写于士每拿；其余三封稍后写于特罗亚 (Troas)。这七封书信，与另外若干封确定为伪托伊格纳修之名的书信，一同流传至今，有希腊文长、短两个版本。短本无疑优于长本，后者充满了后来的插文。此外，1845年又有一个叙利亚语译本公之于世，使争论愈加纷乱；其中只收了上述书信中的三封——《致坡旅甲书》《致以弗所人书》和《致罗马人书》——而且篇幅短得多。有人认为这个译本准确传达了原文；另一些人则认为，它不过是为了实际应用和禁欲修行的目的从原文中摘录而成，后一看法更为可信。

因此，问题就在于希腊文短本与叙利亚语译本之间的取舍。证据大多支持前者；其中的书信并非松散的拼凑之作，而是各有其写作的内在动因；优西比乌知道这些书信（很可能连坡旅甲也已知道），⁵²而且据彼得曼 (Petermann) 的比勘，它们也与第五世纪的亚美尼亚语译本相合。不过，叙利亚文的三封书信虽然缺少一些论主教制及基督神性最为强烈的段落，却仍与希腊文的七封书信一样，勾勒出同一幅生命图景，尤其显出同样炽烈的殉道热忱。

他的品格与历史地位。

伊格纳修在历史上卓然显现，既是大公教会殉道者的典范，也是圣品等级制原则最早的倡导者，其优点和弊端皆具。作为作家，他的思想独创、清新而有力，文风简练、闪耀而富于警句，令人瞩目；但在使徒式的纯朴与健全方面，他逊于革利免和坡旅甲，与新约书信的反差也更为强烈。革利免表现出罗马人性格中的沉静、尊严和治理智慧。伊格纳修则燃烧着希腊人与叙利亚人性情中的烈火与冲动，以致越过了清醒持重的界限。他是一个极不寻常的人，给他的时代留下了强烈的印象。他可说是三个密切相关的观念的化身：殉道的荣耀、主教制的无上权力，以及对异端与分裂的憎恶。圣品等级制的骄傲与谦卑、基督徒的爱心与教会的排他性，在伊格纳修身上都得到了典型的体现。

从书信中显露的本人形象来看，他最美好、最可敬的特质，是对道成肉身之上帝基督的炽热之爱，以及对殉道的热忱。伟大的爱国者若以为国捐躯是甘甜的，他则以为基督而死更甘甜、更光荣，并愿以自己的血滋润土壤，使基督的教会得以生长。他说：“我宁愿为基督而死，也不愿统治全地。”“在世上降卑，为要升到上帝那里，乃是光荣的事。”他恳求罗马人说：“任凭野兽吞吃我吧，使我可以借着它们得享上帝。我是上帝的一粒麦子，我愿被野兽的牙齿磨碎，好使我成为上帝纯净的饼。你们倒要逗引野兽，使它们成为我的坟墓，不留我身体的任何部分；这样，当我睡了的时候，就不致成为任何人的重担。当世人连我的身体也不能再看见时，我才真是基督的门徒。请为我祈求主，使我能借这些器具成为献给上帝的祭物。”⁵³稍后又说：“火、十字架、投身野兽、骨头散落、肢体砍断、全身压碎、魔鬼的残酷折磨，尽可临到我，只要它们使我得享耶稣基督……我的爱已被钉在十字架上，我里面再没有贪爱属世之物的火……我不以必朽坏的食物为乐，也不以今生的享受为乐。我所要的是上帝的饼，就是基督的肉；我所愿喝的是他的血，就是不朽的爱。”⁵⁴

然而，从这些及类似的段落中，我们也看出，他的殉道精神超出了真正使徒式的清醒与顺服的界限；真正的清醒与顺服，是按照主的美意，同样愿意离世或存留。⁵⁵他的殉道精神退化为喧嚷的急躁和病态的狂热。它更像一支炫目而阴森的火炬，而不是清澈安静的光。他那种种过分宣称自己谦卑、全然不配的话语中，也掺杂着一种精微的属灵骄傲和自我称许。最后，他致坡旅甲书信的语气，也有令人不快之处：他对待这位可敬的主教、使徒的门徒——此时必已进入壮年——不像同工和弟兄，倒像对待学生，给予种种劝诫和警告，诸如：“务求比你现有的更多的知识。”“要灵巧像蛇。”“要比现在更加热心。”“要逃避魔鬼的诡计。”⁵⁶这最后一项训诫甚至超出了保罗对提摩太所说的“你要逃避少年的私欲”，⁵⁷也很难据此为它辩护。由此可见，不仅在教导的力量与深度上，而且在生活与受苦上，使徒时期的殉道者与后使徒时期的殉道者之间，都有显著的差别。

伊格纳修书信中的教义观与教会观，是将约翰关于道成肉身的教义和保罗关于教会乃耶稣基督身体的观念，以一种独特的方式结合起来，并加以某种物质化的理解而形成的。在“大公教会”——这一用语是由他引入的——即他那个时代实行主教制的正统教会组织中，作者仿佛看到了道成肉身奥秘的延续；他为反驳幻影派 (Docetists)，曾极力强调道成肉身的真实性。他又在每一位主教身上，看到了基督有形的代表，以及教会合一的人格化中心；他以最深切的关怀和近乎激烈的热忱，竭力使读者领会这一点。这样，他便将使徒们的这些观念直接应用于外在的组织，使其服务于日益发展的圣品等级制的原则与制度。这正是这些书信的主要重要性所在；也正因此，它们在天主教徒和高级教职制拥护者中享有盛誉，⁵⁸却不受反主教制者和现代较激进批判学派的欢迎。⁵⁹

值得注意的是，我们在另一章中已经阐述过的主教等级制观念，最先清楚而大胆地提出它的，并不是同时代的罗马主教革利免，⁶⁰而是东方教会的一位主教；不过，正是他将这一观念移植到罗马的土壤上，并在那里以自己殉道的鲜血为它作了印证。同样值得注意的是，这些最古老的圣品等级制文献，不久便因虔诚的欺诈而遭到如此多的增插、删节和残损，以致今日几乎不可能从传统中被夸大和伪托的伊格纳修形象之下，确切辨认出历史上真实的伊格纳修。

§ 165. 伊格纳修之争

在使徒教父的一切著作中，没有哪一部像伊格纳修书信这样引起如此广泛的讨论，近代尤其如此。这一方面是因为其内容对于主教制问题具有重要意义，另一方面则是因为存在着如此众多的不同版本。后一个事实似乎既有力地支持所有版本都有一个真实底本的假说，也同样有力地反对任何现存文本都保持了完全完整性的假定。勒南 (Renan) 将伊格纳修问题称为早期基督教文献中仅次于《约翰福音》问题的最大难题（Les Évang.，第x页）。

伊格纳修之争经历了三个时期：第一时期，从伪托伊格纳修著作的出版，到较短希腊文修订本的出版（公元1495至1644年）；第二时期，从较短希腊文修订本的发现与出版，到叙利亚文译本的发现与出版（公元1644至1845年），这一时期的结果是较长希腊文修订本被否定；第三时期，从叙利亚文节本的发现直到现在（1845—1883年），这一时期的研究倾向于支持较短希腊文修订本。

七封书信的较长希腊文修订本，另附八封书信。其中四封于1495年在巴黎以拉丁文出版，作为另一部书的附录；另有十一封由法贝尔·斯塔普伦西斯 (Faber Stapulensis) 于1498年同样以拉丁文在巴黎出版；随后，瓦伦丁·哈通 (Valentine Hartung，亦称 Paceus 或 Irenaeus) 于1557年在迪林根 (Dillingen) 出版了全部十五封的希腊文本；安德烈亚斯·格斯纳 (Andreas Gesner) 又于1560年在苏黎世 (Zurich) 出版了其中十二封。天主教徒起初将这些书信全部接受为伊格纳修的真作；哈通、巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 和贝拉明 (Bellarmin) 至少为其中十二封辩护；但加尔文 (Calvin) 和《马格德堡世纪史》的编纂者 (Magdeburg Centuriators) 则全部否定，后来的天主教徒也至少放弃了八封，认为其真实性完全无法成立。这八封是：伊格纳修致圣约翰的两封拉丁文书信，致童贞女马利亚的一封，以及童贞女的复信；另有五封希腊文书信，即伊格纳修致卡斯塔巴拉的马利亚 (Maria Castabolita) 及其复信、致大数人、致安提阿人、致安提阿执事希罗 (Hero)，以及致腓立比人的书信。这些书信充斥着违反历史和年代次序的错误。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 对它们全然不知。它们不过是假借伊格纳修之名与权威、毫无价值的伪作。伪造的伊格纳修及其致圣约翰和童贞女马利亚的书信，竟以一种拙劣的拉丁文译本，长期取代并遮蔽历史上的伊格纳修，直到十六世纪，这实在是令人羞愧的事实。无怪乎加尔文如此鄙夷地谈论这一伪造之作。但同样，历史上的马利亚也让位于虚构的马利亚，真实的彼得让位于伪彼得，真实的革利免让位于伪克莱门。若说有什么地方最能显明历史批判对于捍卫真理与诚实的必要和功用，那就是这里。
优西比乌所知的七封书信的较短希腊文修订本，先以拉丁文译本的形式被发现，由厄舍大主教 (Archbishop Ussher) 于1644年在牛津编刊（Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae，《坡旅甲与伊格纳修书信》）；以撒·沃修斯 (Isaac Vossius) 又于1646年依据美第奇抄本 (Medicean Codex) 刊行了希腊文本；1689年，Th. 吕纳尔 (Th. Ruinart) 再据科尔贝抄本 (Codex Colbertinus)，连同《殉道记》(Martyrium) 一并出版。我们还拥有叙利亚文译本的残篇（见居里顿的版本），以及一个显然译自叙利亚文的亚美尼亚文译本的残篇（1783年印于君士坦丁堡，由彼得曼加以校勘）。此后，较长希腊文修订本的辩护者便寥寥无几（有1711年那位性情古怪的惠斯顿〔Whiston〕，以及较近的1836年的 Fr. C. 迈尔〔Fr. C. Meier〕）；他们的论据已由 R. 罗特 (R. Rothe) 在1837年的《起源》(Anfänge) 中，以及 K. Fr. L. 阿恩特 (K. Fr. L. Arndt) 在1839年的《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken) 中，予以确凿的驳斥。就连罗马天主教学者（如佩塔维乌斯〔Petavius〕、科特利耶〔Cotelier〕、迪潘〔Dupin〕、黑费勒〔Hefele〕、冯克〔Funk〕）通常也已放弃这一版本。不过，关于较短希腊文本的真实性，学者们分持三种意见。

为其真实性与完整性辩护的，有皮尔逊 (Pearson；1672年的《伊格纳修辩护》〔Vindiciae Ignatianae〕，针对敏锐的达莱乌斯〔Dallaeus〕所提出的质疑)；稍后有吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、默勒 (Möhler，罗马天主教徒)、罗特（1837年）、胡特尔 (Huther，1841年)、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck，1843年)、多尔纳 (Dorner，1845年)；在较短叙利亚文译本出版以后，又有雅各布森 (Jacobson)、黑费勒（罗马天主教徒，1847及1855年）、登青格 (Denzinger，罗马天主教徒，1849年)、彼得曼 (Petermann，1849年)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、彻顿 (Churton，1852年)，而论证最为详尽的，则是乌尔霍恩 (Ulhhorn，1851及1856年) 和赞恩 (Zahn，1873年，Ign. v. Ant.，第495—541页)。维泽勒 (Wieseler，1878年)、冯克（见1878年 Patr. Apost.，序言第LX页及后，以及他1883年的专著）、法政牧师特拉弗斯·史密斯 (Canon Travers Smith；见史密斯与韦斯〔Smith and Wace〕，1882年)，以及莱特福特 (Lightfoot，1885年)，也持同样的看法。
支持三封叙利亚文书信的人（见下文第3项），只承认七封书信中与那三封相符的部分。拉德纳 (Lardner，1743年)、莫斯海姆 (Mosheim，1755年)、尼安德 (Neander，1826年)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch，1852年)、莱希勒 (Lechler，1857年)、罗伯逊与唐纳森 (Robertson and Donaldson，1867年)，也倾向于认为其中至少有增插之处。
较短修订本虽比长本更早，却同样是伪作。这些书信是第二世纪后半叶为推行主教制和殉道者崇拜而伪造的。两类迥然不同的神学家曾有力地倡导这一观点：首先是为长老制或反高级教职制立场辩护的加尔文主义者，包括克劳迪乌斯·萨尔马修斯 (Claudius Salmasius，1645年)、大卫·布隆代尔 (David Blondel，1646年)、达莱乌斯（1666年）、塞缪尔·巴斯纳日 (Samuel Basnage)，以及贝尔法斯特 (Belfast) 的基伦博士 (Dr. Killen，1859及1883年)；其次是纯粹出于历史研究兴趣的图宾根批判学派 (Tübingen school)，包括鲍尔博士 (Dr. Baur，1835年，随后于1838年反驳罗特，又于1848及1853年反驳本生)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler，1846年)，以及论述更为详尽的希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1853年)。图宾根学派的批评家将全部伊格纳修文献都视为不合史实、带有倾向性的著作而加以否定，部分原因是这些文献所暗示的整个历史情境，以及那次迂回前往罗马的旅程，本身就不大可信；另一部分原因是它们所倡导的教会治理形式，以及所反对的诺斯替异端，都不可能存在于伊格纳修的时代。这种极端的怀疑主义，与图宾根学派关于原始基督教历史的整体观点紧密相连，却无法解释一个无法回避的事实：伊格纳修是一位具有鲜明个性的历史人物，曾写下若干封在早期教会广为人知并备受重视的书信。勒南承认《致罗马人书》的真实性，却否定其余六封，认为它们是公元170年左右一位狂热支持正统教义和主教制的人所伪造的。他认为其中缺少 le génie, le caractère individuel（才华与独特的个性），但高度赞扬《致罗马人书》，认为殉道者的热忱在其中得到了“son expressio la plus exaltée”（最为高昂的表达，第489页）。
我们承认，这些书信即便在较短的抄本中，其完整性也并非毫无合理的疑点。由于这些书信的抄本同时也收有明确属于伪作的书信（甚至亚美尼亚文译本也有十三封），因此不免使人怀疑，那七封真作也未能完全逃脱伪造者的手。然而，无论如何，支持其真实性和实质完整性的论据仍然十分有力，即：(1) 教父们，尤其是优西比乌的见证。甚至坡旅甲也提到过伊格纳修的书信。(2) 其内容的独特生气与清新气息，是伪造者难以模仿的。(3) 对新约的引用很少，表明其写作时代属于使徒亲传门徒的时期。(4) 它们反驳犹太主义者与幻影派的方式（后者很可能是克林妥〔Cerinthus〕学派中倾向犹太教的诺斯替派），向我们显明诺斯替主义尚处于发展的最初阶段。(5) 它们在教义上尚不明确，尤其在三一论与基督论方面，尽管其中有极力肯定基督神性的措辞。(6) 它们迫切推荐主教制，视其为一种仍属新近、富有活力的制度，以及会众合一的中心，这与爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的教区主教制有别。(7) 它们对于罗马首席权完全缄默，甚至在我们最有理由期待提及此事的《致罗马人书》中也是如此。罗马教会固然受到高度赞扬，罗马主教却连提也未提。无论如何，这些书信必定写于第二世纪中叶以前；它们反映了那个时代的精神：以殉道的荣耀为基础，强烈趋向圣品等级制组织和教会正统。

叙利亚文译本只包含三封书信（《致坡旅甲书》《致以弗所人书》和《致罗马人书》），而且即便这三封也是大幅缩减的形式，不及相应希腊文书信的一半。其末尾题记说：“主教暨殉道者伊格纳修的三封书信至此结束。”然而，本生 (Bunsen) 过分看重这句话了；因为，即使它出自译者本人，而非仅仅出自抄写者，也未必排除其他书信的存在（参彼得曼，l.c.，第xxi页）。亨利·塔塔姆牧师 (Rev. Henry Tattam) 于1839及1843年在利比亚沙漠的一座修道院中发现此译本，同时发现的还有其他365部叙利亚文抄本，现藏于大英博物馆；居里顿 (Cureton) 于1845年首次刊行，又于1849年借助1847年发现的第三部抄本再次出版。居里顿本人为其真实性辩护，持同样看法的还有李 (Lee，1846年)、本生（1847年）、里奇尔 (Ritschl，1851及1857年)、魏斯 (Weiss，1852年)，而论述最为详尽的则是利普修斯 (Lipsius，1856年)；此外还有 E. 德·普雷桑塞 (E. de Pressené，1862年)、伯林格 (Böhringer，1873年)，以及起初持此看法的莱特福特。

诚然，我们为支持较短希腊文本而提出的一切理由，除第一项外，同样适用于叙利亚文伊格纳修书信的真实性，其中有些甚至更为有力；这一译本还另有一个优点，就是没有许多最令人反感的段落（不过《致坡旅甲书》并非如此）。

然而，反对叙利亚文本的，首先是古代的外部见证，尤其是优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的见证；公认他知道并使用过七封书信，而据居里顿 (Cureton) 所说，这一译本的三部抄本中最古老的一部，最早也只能追溯到第六世纪。那时，长本也已传遍整个东方，而且也有叙利亚文译本，正如居里顿所刊出的残篇所显示的。其次是内部的见证：仔细考察便可发现，叙利亚文本的思想与句子缺乏应有的连贯，显露出它是从希腊文本中零碎摘录而成的性质。鲍尔 (Baur，1848年)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1853年)，尤其是乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn，185l年) 和察恩 (Zahn，1873年，第167–241页)，通过精确比较两种文本，已经以迄今未被驳倒、也无从驳倒的方式证明了这一点。简短的叙利亚文伊格纳修书信已如梦幻般消散。就连利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，也已放弃或修正了他们先前的看法。莱特福特论伊格纳修与坡旅甲的巨著（1885年）深入探讨了所有细节，并提供了全部文献，可以视为对伊格纳修问题作出了充分而最终的解决，支持较短的希腊文修订本。

就这一问题目前的状况而言，唯一真实的伊格纳修，乃是七封较短希腊文书信中的伊格纳修。

§ 166. 士每拿的坡旅甲

参§ 19及该处所引文献。

《圣坡旅甲——士每拿主教暨殉道圣职人员——致腓立比人书》 (S. Polycarpi, Smyrnaeorum episcopi et hieromartyris, ad Philippenses Epistola)，最初由法贝尔·斯塔普伦西斯 (Faber Stapulensis) 刊行拉丁文本（巴黎，1498年），随后由彼得鲁斯·哈洛伊修斯 (Petrus Halloisius)（哈卢瓦〔Halloix〕）附希腊文原文刊行，杜埃 (Duaei)，1633年；又由 Jac. 乌瑟里乌斯 (Jac. Usserius)（厄舍〔Ussher〕）刊行，伦敦，1647年；亦见《使徒教父文集》(Apost. Fath.) 各版，尤其是雅各布森 (Jacobson)（他校勘过数部抄本）、察恩 (Zahn)（1876年）、冯克 (Funk)（1878年）及莱特福特 (Lightfoot)（1885年）诸版。

《圣坡旅甲殉道记》(Martyrium S. Polycarpi)，又称《士每拿教会通函》(Epistola circularis ecclesix Smyrnensis)，最初由大主教厄舍 (Ussher) 刊行希腊文及拉丁文完整本，伦敦，1647年；随后收入《使徒教父文集》(Patr. Apost.) 各版，尤其是雅各布森 (Jacobson)（他在此也利用了三部新抄本）、察恩 (Zahn) 及冯克 (Funk) 诸版。

L. 迪谢纳 (L. Duchesne)：《皮奥尼乌斯所著士每拿主教圣坡旅甲传，首次刊行希腊文本》(Vita Sancti Polycarpi Smyrnaeorum episcopi auctore Pionio Primum graece edita)。巴黎，1881年。同一作品亦见冯克的《使徒教父文集》(Patr. Apost.) 第2卷（1881年），第LIV–LVIII、315–347页。据冯克判断，此书出自第四或第五世纪；它所呈现的，不是坡旅甲的真实面貌，而是后世基督徒眼中的坡旅甲。

察恩 (Zahn)：《安提阿的伊格纳修》(Ign. v. Ant.)，第495–511页；以及他所编《伊格纳修与坡旅甲》版本的导论 (Proleg.)（1876年），第XLII–LV页。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)：《使徒教父》(Ap. Fath.)，第191–247页。

勒南 (Renan)：《基督教会》(L’église chrétienne)（1879年），第ix、x章，第437–466页。

莱特福特 (Lightfoot)：《圣伊格纳修与圣坡旅甲》(S. Ign. and S. Polycarp)（1885年），第I卷，第417–704页。

坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 生于公元69年左右或更早，是使徒约翰的门徒、伊格纳修的一位较年轻的朋友，又是爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的老师（在130至140年之间）。第二世纪上半叶，他以长老兼主教的身份主持小亚细亚士每拿 (Smyrna) 教会；约于154年前往罗马，调解复活节之争；并于公元155年，在安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 治下的逼迫中受火刑而死，享年甚高，已服侍主八十六年。⁶¹ 他的独创性和思想活力不及革利免或伊格纳修，却具有真正令人敬重的品格，以及质朴、如古代族长般的虔诚。他的门徒、里昂的爱任纽（在埃留提鲁〔Eleutherus〕任内，即177–190年间著述），在写给同窗弗洛里努斯 (Florinus) 的一封信中，为我们留下了关于这位“蒙福而有使徒风范的长老”极其宝贵的回忆；弗洛里努斯当时已陷入诺斯替主义的谬误。这些回忆表明，坡旅甲何等忠实地持守使徒传统，又何等痛斥一切偏离这传统的行为。爱任纽清楚记得他的生活方式和容貌、他向众人所作的讲论，以及他从约翰和其他亲眼见证者口中领受、又向人传述的有关主的教训与神迹的事，这些都与圣经相合。⁶² 爱任纽在另一处说，坡旅甲始终教导他从使徒所领受、由教会传承下来的道理；他还记述，坡旅甲曾在罗马称诺斯替派的马吉安 (Marcion) 为“撒但的长子”。⁶³ 这样的话出自约翰的门徒之口，绝非不可置信；因为约翰尽管性情温和，却禁止信徒向那些否认主真实神性与人性的人问安。⁶⁴ 坡旅甲《致腓立比人书》中的一段话也证实了这一点：⁶⁵“凡不认耶稣基督是成了肉身来的，就是敌基督；⁶⁶ 凡不承认十字架奥秘的，就是出于魔鬼；凡随己意曲解主的话，说没有复活和审判的，就是撒但的长子。因此，我们要离弃这群人的空谈和虚假教训，转向那从起初就赐给我们的道，警醒祷告，⁶⁷ 恒切禁食，极其谦卑地祈求上帝，不叫我们遇见试探，⁶⁸ 正如主所说：‘心灵固然愿意，肉体却软弱了。’”⁶⁹

这封《致腓立比人书》共有十四个短章，自1633年起已有全文刊行。这位约翰时代最后的见证人曾写过数封信给邻近的会众，而此书是他留给我们的唯一文献。最早提到它的是他的门徒爱任纽；⁷⁰ 据哲罗姆记述，在他那个时代，小亚细亚各教会仍在公开诵读此书；其内容也与我们所知的坡旅甲生平及品格相符，因而没有正当理由怀疑它的真实性。⁷¹ 就文学作品而言，它并无多少长处，但文笔质朴恳切，洋溢着高尚的基督徒精神。此书写于伊格纳修死后（第13章提到他的书信），以坡旅甲及其众长老的名义写成；它称赞腓立比人向被囚的伊格纳修及其同伴所表现的爱心，以及他们对古老信仰的持守；随后以质朴而恳切的言辞劝勉他们，要有爱心、和睦、知足、忍耐与坚忍，甚至要为仇敌和逼迫者祷告；又分别向执事、长老、青年、妻子、寡妇和童女提出特别的训诫，其间也抨击诺斯替派的幻影说谬误。它以崇高的言辞论到基督，称他为主，坐在上帝的右边，天上地上的万有都服在他以下；一切有生命的都事奉他；他将要来审判活人死人；对于一切不信他的人，上帝必追讨他们流他血的罪。⁷² 坡旅甲以健全的自觉，谨防被人视为与使徒同等：“弟兄们，我写这些话，并不是出于自高，而是因为你们有所请求。无论是我，还是任何与我一样的人，都不能达到那蒙福而荣耀的保罗的智慧。他曾在你们中间，当着那时在世之人的面，准确而坚定地教导真理之道；他离开以后，也写了一封信给你们，⁷³ 你们可以借此在所赐给你们的信心上造就自己；这信心是我们众人的母，⁷⁴ 盼望紧随其后，而对上帝、对基督、对邻舍的爱，则引领人更进一步。⁷⁵ 人若充满这些美德，就成全了义的诫命；因为有爱的人，远离一切罪恶。”⁷⁶ 这与圣保罗的体系并非完全一致。但应当记得，坡旅甲在第一章就把信心和整个救恩说成是白白恩典的赐予。⁷⁷

这封书信交织着许多使人联想到符类福音书、保罗书信、约翰书信及《彼得前书》的话语，因此在正典史上具有相当重要的地位。⁷⁸

《圣坡旅甲殉道记》(Martyrium S. Polycarpi，共22章) 采用通函形式，由士每拿教会写给弗吕家 (Phrygia) 的非罗米利乌姆 (Philomelium) 教会及“大公教会的所有堂区”；从第18章看来，它似乎写于坡旅甲殉道的第一次周年纪念之前。优西比乌在其教会史中收录了这篇优美纪念文的大部分，厄舍则于1647年首次刊行其完整的希腊文原文。它以造就人心的笔调描写坡旅甲受审和殉道的经过，然而也增添了一些带有传奇诗意的神奇情节。例如，柴堆点燃时，火焰如同船上鼓满的帆，环绕着坡旅甲的身体，却不触及它；他的身体反而毫发无伤，发出绚丽的光彩，仿佛烤白的面包，又如坩埚中的金银，并散发出珍贵香料般的芬芳。随后，一名行刑者用矛刺入这位圣者的身体，顿时鲜血涌流，竟将火焰熄灭。叙事中还提到一只鸽子从燃烧的柴堆中飞起；但此处文本有讹误，优西比乌、鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 和尼基弗鲁斯 (Nicephorus) 均未提及此事。⁷⁹ 鸽子的标记（在古代纪念物上屡见不鲜）起初可能是写在页边，象征殉道者纯洁的灵魂，或充满他全人的圣灵之能力；然而，把“鸽子”一词插入正文，似乎有意要与那从罗马皇帝骨灰中飞起、宣告他们被奉为神明的鹰形成对照，因而可能与当时渐兴的殉道者及圣徒崇拜有关。

这篇叙事的后几章，在描写殉道时，远远超出了《使徒行传》记述司提反和年长的雅各殉道时所保持的审慎界限；这也从另一方面说明，使徒文献与古代大公教会文献之间，虽有种种相近之处，却仍存在不可否认的差别。⁸⁰

附注

I. 在使徒教父的一切著作中，坡旅甲的这封书信最缺乏独创性，但语气最接近保罗的教牧书信，也最多使人联想到新约中的话语。我们录出前四章作为范例。

I. “坡旅甲和与他同在的众长老，写信给寄居腓立比的上帝的会众。愿怜悯、平安从全能的上帝和我们的救主耶稣基督，多多地加给你们。

“你们在我们的主耶稣基督里有喜乐，我也与你们一同大大欢喜，因为你们接待了那些真爱心的榜样，并照你们所当行的，陪伴了那些身负神圣锁链的人〔伊格纳修及其同囚佐西穆斯 (Zosimus) 和鲁弗斯 (Rufus)；参第9章〕；他们是上帝和我们的主真正选民的冠冕。我也欢喜，因为你们信心的坚固根基，自最早的时候就为人所称道，至今依然长存，并为我们的主耶稣基督结出果子。他为我们的罪受苦，然而上帝解除了阴间的痛苦，叫他从死里复活〔使徒行传2:24〕；你们虽不得看见他，却因信他就有说不出来、满有荣光的大喜乐〔彼得前书1:8〕；许多人都渴望进入这喜乐；你们知道，你们得救是本乎恩，并不是出于行为〔以弗所书2:8、9〕，乃是上帝的旨意借着耶稣基督所成就的。
“所以，要束上你们的腰，存敬畏的心事奉主〔彼得前书1:13〕，并且诚实，如同那些已经弃绝众人虚妄空洞的言谈和谬误，并且信那叫我们的主耶稣基督从死里复活、又给他荣耀的上帝〔彼得前书1:21〕的人；上帝又赐他宝座，使他坐在自己的右边〔参希伯来书1:3；8:1；12:2〕；天上地上的万有都服在他以下。一切灵都事奉他。凡不信他的人，上帝必向他们追讨他的血债。但那叫他从死里复活的，也必叫我们复活，只要我们遵行他的旨意，行在他的诫命中，爱他所爱的，保守自己远离一切不义、贪婪、贪财、毁谤和作假见证；不以恶报恶，以辱骂还辱骂〔彼得前书3:9〕，不以拳脚还拳脚，以咒诅还咒诅，记念主耶稣在教训中所说的话〔参使徒行传20:35〕：你们不要论断人，免得你们被论断；你们要饶恕人，就必蒙饶恕；你们要怜悯人，就必蒙怜悯；你们用什么量器量给人，也必用什么量器量给你们〔马太福音7:1、2；路加福音6:36–38〕；又说，贫穷的人和为义受逼迫的人有福了，因为上帝的国是他们的〔路加福音6:20；马太福音5:3、10〕。
“弟兄们，我将这些关乎义的事写给你们，不是因为我自以为有什么资格，而是因为你们邀请我如此行。因为无论是我，还是任何像我这样的人，都不能企及那蒙福、得荣耀的保罗的智慧。他在你们中间的时候，曾在当时还活着的人面前，准确而坚定地教导真理的道；离开你们以后，又写了一封信给你们。你们若仔细研读，就会发现，这封信能在你们所领受的信心上造就你们；这信心有盼望相随，又有对上帝、基督和邻舍的爱在先，是我们众人的母〔加拉太书4:26〕。因为人若心中具有这些恩德，就已经成全了义的诫命，因为有爱的人远离一切罪恶。
“然而，贪财是万恶的开端〔ἀρχή^*，而非‘根’（ῥίζη^*）〕〔提摩太前书6:10〕。所以，我们既知道，我们没有带什么到世上来，也不能带什么去〔提摩太前书6:7〕，就当以公义的军装装备自己；首先要教导自己遵行主的诫命。其次，要教导你们的妻子行在所领受的信心中，并且行在爱心和纯洁中，以全然的诚实温柔地爱自己的丈夫，以全然的贞洁平等地爱所有的人；又要教养儿女，使他们认识并敬畏上帝〔参以弗所书6:11、13、14〕。我们要教导寡妇在关乎主的信仰上谨慎自守，不住地为众人祷告，远离一切毁谤、恶言、作假见证、贪财和各样的恶；知道她们是上帝的祭坛，他明察万事，没有什么能向他隐藏，无论是思虑、意念，还是心中任何隐秘的事。”

摘自《坡旅甲殉道记》(Martyrium Polycarpi)。当总督要求坡旅甲指着凯撒的护佑神灵起誓，并弃绝基督时，他作出了这令人难忘的回答：

“我事奉基督已经八十六年，他从未对我行过任何恶事。那么，我怎能亵渎那救了我的君王呢？”（τὸν βασιλέα μου τὸν σώσαντά με^*）第9章。

坡旅甲站在火刑柱旁，双手反绑在背后；当柴堆点燃时，他扬声作了如下崇高的祷告。这是亲耳听见的门徒所记述的（第14章）：

“主，全能的上帝，你所亲爱、蒙福的儿子耶稣基督的父啊，我们借着他领受了认识你的恩典；众天使、众权能者、整个受造界，以及活在你面前的全体义人的上帝啊，我称颂你，因为你俯允我配得这一日、这一时，使我得以列在你的殉道者中，喝我主耶稣基督的杯，在圣灵所赐的不朽坏中，复活进入灵魂与身体的永生。真实信实的上帝啊，求你今日接纳我，与他们一同来到你面前，作为美好而蒙悦纳的祭物，就是你为自己所预备、为成就你的应许而献上的。因此，我为你一切的怜悯赞美你；我借着永远的大祭司、你所爱的儿子耶稣基督，称颂你，荣耀你；愿荣耀借着他归于你和圣灵，从今时直到永远。阿们。”

关于坡旅甲的良好通俗叙述，包括他的书信和殉道事迹，见《拔摩圣约翰的门徒》(The Pupils of St. John the Divine)，作者为《雷德克利夫的继承人》(Heir of Redcliffe)的作者，收入麦克米伦 (Macmillan) 的“主日文库”丛书。伦敦，1863年。

§ 167. 巴拿巴

版本

最早的希腊文和拉丁文版本，由厄舍大主教 (Archbishop Ussher，Oxf.，1643年，1644年毁于火灾)、Luc. 达谢里 (Luc. d’achery，Par.，1645年)和伊萨克·福斯 (Isaac Voss，Amstel.，1646年)刊行；但前四章和第五章的一部分除外，当时这些部分仅见于拉丁文译本。

希腊文原文的第一个完整版本，由蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 根据附载此书的《西奈抄本》(Codex Sinaiticus)刊行，收入该抄本的摹真版，Petropoli，1862年，第IV卷，第135–141页；又收入1863年的《西奈抄本新约》(Novum Testam. Sinait.)。此文本出自第四世纪。1859年，蒂申多夫在西奈山 (Mt. Sinai) 的圣凯瑟琳修道院 (Convent of St. Catharine) 发现了它，现藏于圣彼得堡 (St. Petersburg) 的图书馆。

1875年，布吕恩尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 在君士坦丁堡发现了一部出自十一世纪（1056年）的《巴拿巴书信》希腊文新抄本，与《革利免书信》同存一处；最近的编者，尤其是希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)，已经利用了它。

O. v. 格布哈特 (O. v. Gebhardt)、哈纳克 (Harnack) 和赞恩 (Zahn)：《使徒教父》(Patr. Ap.)，1876年。格布哈特依据《西奈抄本》(Cod. Sin.) 编辑正文，哈纳克编写批判性注释。1877年的小型版也对校了君士坦丁堡抄本 (Const. Cod.)。

赫费勒—丰克 (Hefele-Funk)：《使徒教父》(Patr. Ap.)，1878年，第2–59页。

Ad. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《巴拿巴书信》(Barnabae Epistula. Inteqram Graece iterum edidit, veterem interpretationem Latinam, commentarium criticum et adnotationes addidit A. H. Ed. altera et valde aucta.；A. H. 再次刊行完整希腊文，附古拉丁文译本、批判性评注和注释；第二版，大幅增订)。Lips.，1877年。题献给布吕恩尼奥斯，称其为“Orientalis Ecclesicae splendido lumini.”（东方教会灿烂的明灯）。他因东方的动乱而未能刊行这部新抄本，于1876年10月将一份校勘记录寄给希尔根费尔德（《序言》〔Prol.〕第xiii页）。这是最好的批判版。参哈纳克发表于许勒 (Schürer) 主编的《神学文献报》(Theol. Lit. Ztg.) 1877年，第473–477页的书评。

J. G. 米勒 (J. G. Müller，巴塞尔〔Basle〕)：《巴拿巴书信释义》(Erklärung des Barnabasbriefes)。Leipz.，1869年。作为德·韦特 (De Wette)《新约注释》的附编。

英译本有韦克 (Wake，1693年)、罗伯茨 (Roberts) 和唐纳森 (Donaldson，收入《尼西亚前期文库》〔Ante-Nic. Lib.〕，1867年)、胡尔 (Hoole，1872年)、伦德尔 (Rendall，1877年)、夏普 (Sharpe，1880年，据西奈抄本译出)。德译本有赫费勒 (Hefele，1840年)、朔尔茨 (Scholz，1865年)、迈尔 (Mayer，1869年)、里根巴赫 (Riggenbach，1873年)。

批判性研究

C. Jos. 赫费勒 (C. Jos. Hefele，罗马天主教徒)：《使徒巴拿巴的书信：重新考察与解释》(Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas, auf’s Neue untersucht und erklärt)。Tüb.，1840年。

Joh. 凯泽 (Joh. Kayser)：《论所谓的巴拿巴书信》(ueber den sogen. Barnabasbrief)。帕德博恩 (Paderborn)，1866年。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)：《使徒教父》(Ap. Fathers)，1874年，第248–317页。

K. 维泽勒 (K. Wieseler)：《论巴拿巴书信的起源与作者》(On the Origin and Authorship of the Ep. of B.)，载《德国神学年鉴》(Jahrbuecher für Deutsche Theol.)，1870年，第603页及后。

O. 布劳恩斯贝格尔 (O. Braunsberger，罗马天主教徒)：《使徒巴拿巴：对其生平及归于他名下的书信的学术评估》(Der Apostel Barnabas. Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte Brief wissenschaftlich gewürdigt)。美因茨 (Mainz)，1876年。

W. 坎宁安 (W. Cunningham)：《圣巴拿巴书信》(The Ep. of St. Barnabas)。伦敦，1876年。

塞缪尔·夏普 (Samuel Sharpe)：《据西奈抄本刊行的巴拿巴书信》(The Ep. of B. from the Sinaitic MS)。伦敦，1880年。

J. 魏斯 (J. Weiss)：《巴拿巴书信的批判性考察》(Der Barnabasbrief kritisch untersucht)。柏林，1888年。

米利根 (Milligan)，载史密斯 (Smith) 与韦斯 (Wace) 主编的著作，第I卷，第260–265页；哈纳克 (Harnack)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，第II卷，第101–105页。

其他论文作者有亨克 (Henke，1827年)、勒尔达姆 (Rördam，1828年)、乌尔曼 (Ullmann，1828年)、申克尔 (Schenkel，1837年)、弗兰克 (Franke，1840年)、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker，1864年)、海德克 (Heydecke，1874年)。关于巴拿巴与殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 的关系，见M. 冯·恩格尔哈特 (M. von Engelhardt)：《殉道者游斯丁的基督教》(Das Christenthum Justins d. M.)，1878年，第375–394页。

赫费勒、凯泽、唐纳森、希尔根费尔德、布劳恩斯贝格尔和施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl) 均充分论述了巴拿巴的教义。

参哈纳克为莱比锡版《巴拿巴书信》(Barn. Ep.) 所写序言中列出的1822–1875年书目，第XX页及后；又见理查森 (Richardson)《文献提要》(Synopsis)，第16–19页（收录至1887年）。

所谓《巴拿巴公函》是一部匿名作品，完全没有提及读者的姓名或居住地。作者不是以他们教师的身份，而是以他们中一员的身份向他们说话。⁸¹ 他以十分笼统的方式开篇：“众儿女啊，奉爱我们的主耶稣基督之名，愿你们在平安中都蒙问安”；并以下列话语结束：“仁爱与和平的儿女啊，愿你们安好。愿荣耀与一切恩典的主与你们的灵同在。阿们。”⁸² 俄利根 (Origen) 称之为“公函”，大概就是这个缘故；不过，这一称呼必须作有限度的理解。它虽不是写给某一特定会众的，却是为某一特定类别的基督徒而写的，他们有重新陷入犹太化谬误的危险。

内容。这封书信主要讨论教义（第1–17章），末了则以若干实际劝勉收尾，劝人行在“光明之路”上，避开“黑暗之路”（第18–21章）。⁸³ 它的宗旨与《希伯来书》基本相同，但在深度、独创性和灵性的感力上却远为逊色。它表明，基督教是上帝为救恩所设立的全然充足的制度，并废除了犹太教及其一切律例和礼仪。旧事已过，一切都变成新的了。基督确实赐给我们一条律法；但这是一条新的律法，没有强制的轭。⁸⁴ 摩西的法版被打碎，为要使基督的爱印在我们心中。⁸⁵ 因此，断言旧约仍有约束力，既是罪，也是愚妄。基督徒应当追求更高的知识，明白两者的区别。

然而，作者所谓的犹太教，并不是按其真正属灵意义理解的摩西和先知著作，而是对这些著作属肉体的误解。在他看来，旧约倒是一种隐藏着的基督教；他借着神秘的寓意解释，把基督教读入旧约，正如斐洛 (Philo) 用同样的方法将柏拉图哲学暗中带入旧约一样。他在这种寓意观念上走得如此之远，以致实际上似乎否认了字面的历史意义。例如，他断言，上帝从未要犹太人献祭、禁食、守安息日和在圣殿敬拜，而是要纯粹属灵的敬拜；食物的律例与吃洁净和不洁净的动物毫无关系，只涉及与不同类别之人的交往，以及某些美德和恶习。他的千禧年论 (chiliasm) 同样建立在寓意释经之上，不能证明他有犹太化倾向，正如游斯丁、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良的千禧年论也不能证明这一点一样。他认为，创造的六日预表历史中六个千年的劳作时期，此后先是第七个千年的安息，继而是第八个千年的永恒；后者由每周的主日所预表。犹太人对旧约所作属肉体的解释，是出于魔鬼的歪曲。基督徒，而非犹太人，才是上帝真正的以色列，是旧约圣经的合法拥有者。

巴拿巴由此宣告，基督教与犹太教是绝对分离的。在这一点上，他比任何使徒后时期的作家都走得更远。因此，有人指责他持有不健全的极端保罗主义，近于反律法主义和异端的诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism)。但这种指责并不公允。他流露的是保罗的精神，只是缺少保罗的深度、智慧和辨别力。保罗在《加拉太书》和《歌罗西书》中，对于犹太人的割礼、严守安息日的主张和礼仪主义，若将其作为称义的根据和束缚良心的轭，同样采取毫不妥协的态度；但他仍肯定摩西律法是为基督教作预备的学校。巴拿巴忽略了这一点，只看到否定的一面。然而，他也承认基督的新律法。他对基督教哲学有一些深刻的洞见和隐约的领悟。他可以称为一位正统的诺斯替主义者。他处在圣保罗与殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 之间，正如殉道者游斯丁处在巴拿巴与亚历山大学派 (Alexandrian school) 之间一样。革利免 (Clement) 和俄利根 (Origen) 虽然反对他的千禧年论，却喜爱他追求更高基督教知识的热忱，以及他的寓意释经；这种释经遮蔽了对旧约的一切恰当的历史理解。

《巴拿巴书信》具有相当的历史、教义和护教价值。他证实了福音的主要事实和教义。他见证了普遍在“第八日”守主日的惯例，以此欢庆基督的复活，并将其与犹太人在第七日所守的安息日严格区别开来。他引用“被召的人多，选上的人少”这句话，并冠以引用圣经的庄严公式“经上记着说”，从而为《马太福音》的正典权威提供了第一个明确的论据，尽管他没有提到这卷书的名称。⁸⁶ 他还引入了基督的话，说他来不是“召义人，乃是召罪人”（第5章）；这些话记载于《马太福音》9:13。他的书信中有许多与福音书、保罗书信、《彼得前书》和《启示录》的经文相对应的语句。他直接引用旧约的地方很多，尤其是摩西五经、《诗篇》和《以赛亚书》；但他也引用《以斯拉四书》(IV. Esdras) 和《以诺书》(Book of Enoch)。⁸⁷

作者。这封书信最早由亚历山大的革利免和俄利根引用，视为使徒巴拿巴的作品；巴拿巴在早期教会史中占有极显著的地位。⁸⁸ 俄利根似乎几乎将它与受默示的圣经并列。在第四世纪的《西奈抄本圣经》(Sinaitic Bible) 中，它以《巴拿巴书信》之名，紧接在《启示录》之后（甚至同在第135页第二栏），仿佛它是新约的正式组成部分。由此我们可以推断，某些教会曾将它作为次等的教会书卷诵读，如同《革利免书信》《坡旅甲书信》和《黑马牧人书》一样。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆也将它归于巴拿巴，却把它列入“伪作”或“伪经”之中。⁸⁹ 他们似乎怀疑的是这封书信的权威，而不是它是否确为巴拿巴所作。因此，历史见证有力而一致地支持巴拿巴为作者；较早的编者全都接受这一看法，后来的批评学者中也有数人接受。⁹⁰

然而，内证却更有力地指向一位使徒后时期的作家。⁹¹ 这封书信与保罗的资深同工巴拿巴的地位和声望并不相称，除非我们假定，他是一个才干较低的人，在他那位来自大数 (Tarsus) 的朋友如明星般升起之时，逐渐黯然隐退。书信对摩西律法采取了极端的立场；这样一种立场，我们很难期待于一位曾在外邦人的使徒和犹太使徒之间居中调解的人，何况他在安提阿 (Antioch) 的冲突中，还曾站在彼得和马可一边，反对那位勇敢捍卫自由的人；不过，我们应当记得，这只是一时的前后不一，而其后他的思想无疑发生了反转。作者为了彰显救主的恩典，说基督的使徒在归信以前是罪大恶极的人，⁹² 并且沉溺于牵强而荒诞的寓意幻想。⁹³ 他又是在耶路撒冷被毁之后写作的；那时巴拿巴极可能已不在人世，虽然他的卒年不详，而根据《歌罗西书》4:10和《彼得前书》5:13所作的推论也不确定。

诚然，这些论据并非决定性的；但有一点相当确定：若巴拿巴写了这封书信，他就不可能是《希伯来书》的作者，反之亦然 (vice versa)。两者之间的差异太大，不可能出于同一作者。古代教会将这部书排除在正典之外，表现了健全的判断力；然而，若它确是使徒巴拿巴的真作，⁹⁴ 那么它也像匿名的《希伯来书》或马可、路加的著作一样，有资格被收入正典。

从作者熟悉犹太文献，并且显然熟悉斐洛 (Philo) 及其解释旧约的寓意方法来看，他很可能是一位来自亚历山大 (Alexandria) 的归信犹太人（也许名叫巴拿巴，这就很容易解释这种混淆）。他的书信最早在埃及为人所知，也在那里最受推崇；收录这封书信的《西奈抄本圣经》，很可能抄写于亚历山大或巴勒斯坦的凯撒利亚 (Caesarea)。读者主要是埃及和东方的犹太基督徒，他们过分看重摩西的传统和礼仪。⁹⁵

写作时间。这部作品写于耶路撒冷和圣殿被毁之后，因为书中提及此事时，将其视为已经发生的事实；⁹⁶ 然而，它很可能写于第一世纪结束以前，肯定早于哈德良 (Hadrian) 统治下耶路撒冷的重建（120年）。⁹⁷

§ 168. 黑马 (Hermas)

版本

较早的版本仅提供不完整的拉丁文译本，最初由法伯·斯塔普伦西斯 (Faber Stapulensis) 刊行（巴黎，Par.，1513年）。此后又发现了其他拉丁文抄本。希腊文文本由康斯坦丁·西莫尼德斯 (Constantine Simonides) 从阿索斯山 (Mt. Athos) 带回，称为《莱比锡抄本》(Cod. Lipsiensis)，最初由R. 安格尔 (R. Anger) 刊行，G. 丁多夫 (G. Dindorf) 作序（莱比锡，Lips.，1856年）；随后由蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 收入德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 编《使徒教父集》(Patres Apost.)，莱比锡，1857年（第572–637页）；又见于1863年的第二版。在第二版中，Tischenderf（原文如此）因其间发现了《西奈抄本》(Cod. Sinaiticus)，撤回了他先前对阿索斯山希腊文《黑马牧人书》之原文地位的异议；他曾断言，那是中世纪根据拉丁文重新译成的希腊文（见第二版的《导论、附录及序言》〔Proleg., Appendix and Preface〕）。Ποιμὴν ὅρασις^* 也印在《西奈抄本》大型版第四卷的末尾（第142–148页），圣彼得堡 (Peters b.)，1862年。阿索斯山与西奈山的文本基本一致。1860年，莱比锡出版了一部埃塞俄比亚文译本，由Ant. 达巴迪 (Ant. d’abbadie) 编订，并附拉丁文译本。参狄尔曼 (Dillmann) 载于1861年《德国东方学会杂志》(“Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft”) 的文章；朔德 (Schodde)：《黑马先知：〈黑马牧人书〉埃塞俄比亚文译本考察》(Hêrmâ Nabî, the Ethiop. V of P. H. examined)，莱比锡，1876年（哈纳克在1877年《神学文献报》〔“Theol. Lit. Ztg.”〕第58页作了评论）；以及G.与H.的《导论》(Proleg.)，第xxxiv页及后。

O. 冯·格布哈特 (O. v. Gebhardt) 与哈纳克 (Harnack)：《使徒教父著作集》(Patrum Apost. Opera)，第III分册。莱比锡，1877年。希腊文与拉丁文。冯·格布哈特依据《西奈抄本》作了极为审慎的文本校订，并附详尽的导论（84页），另有哈纳克撰写的文本批判和历史注释。

丰克 (Funk) 修订的赫费勒 (Hefele)《使徒教父集》(Patres Apost.) 第五版，第I卷，第334–563页。希腊文与拉丁文。大体遵循冯·格布哈特的文本。

Ad. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《黑马牧人书：据西奈与莱比锡抄本重建希腊文文本等，第二次修订大幅增订版》(Hermae Pastor. Graece e codicibus Sinaitico et Lipsiensi ... restituit, etc. Ed. altera emendata et valde aucta.)。莱比锡，1881年。附导论和文本批判注释（257页）。同一作者：《黑马牧人书希腊文全本》(Hermae Pastor Graece integrum ambitu)。莱比锡，1887年（130页）。依据阿索斯山与西奈抄本。

S. P. 兰布罗斯 (S. P. Lambros，雅典教授)：《〈黑马牧人书〉阿索斯抄本校勘，附导论》(A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas, together with an Introduction)。J. A. 罗宾逊 (J. A. Robinson) 翻译并编辑，剑桥，1888年。

英文译本有韦克 (Wake) 译本（1693年，据拉丁文译本）；F. 克龙比 (F. Crombie) 译本（《尼西亚前基督教文库》〔“Ante-Nicene Christian Library”〕第I卷，1867年，据《西奈抄本》的希腊文）；查尔斯·H. 胡尔 (Charles H. Hoole) 译本（1870年，据希尔根费尔德1866年第一版）；以及罗宾逊译本（1888年）。

论文

C. Reinh. 雅赫曼 (C. Reinh. Jachmann)：《黑马牧人书》(Der Hirte der Hermas)。柯尼斯堡 (Königsberg)，1835年。

恩斯特·加布 (Ernst Gaâb)：《黑马牧人书》(Der Hirte des Hermas)。巴塞尔 (Basel)，1866年（203页）。

Theod. 察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《黑马牧人书》(Der Hirt des Hermas)。哥达 (Gotha)，1868年。（另参他在1868年《研究与评论》〔Studien und Kritiken〕上对加布著作的评论，第319–349页。）

查尔斯·R. 胡尔 (Charles R. Hoole，牛津基督堂学院)：《黑马牧人书英译，附导论及注释》(The Shepherd of Hermas translated into English, with an Introduction and Notes)。伦敦、牛津及剑桥，1870年（184页）。

Gust. 海涅 (Gust. Heyne)：《黑马牧人书写于何时》(Quo tempore Hermae Pastor scriptus sit)。柯尼斯堡 (Regimonti)，1872年。

J. 唐纳森 (J. Donaldson)：《使徒教父》(The Apostolical Fathers)（1874年），第318–392页。

H. M. 贝姆 (H. M. Behm)：《题为〈牧人〉之书的作者》(Der Verfasser der Schrift., welche d. Titel "Hirt" führt)。罗斯托克 (Rostock)，1876年（71页）。

布吕尔 (Brüll)：《黑马牧人书：起源与内容考察》(Der Hirt des Hermas. Nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht)。布赖斯高的弗赖堡 (Freiburg i. B.)，1882年。同一作者：《论〈革利免一书〉与〈黑马牧人书〉的起源》(Ueber den Ursprung des ersten Clemensbriefs und des Hirten des Hermas)。1882年。

Ad. 林克 (Ad. Link)：《〈黑马牧人书〉中基督的位格与工作》(Christi Person und Werk im Hirten des Hermas)。马尔堡 (Marburg)，1886年。《黑马牧人书的统一性》(Die Einheit des Pastor Hermae)。马尔堡 (Mar b.)，1888年。反驳希尔根费尔德，维护《黑马牧人书》的统一性。

P. 鲍姆加特纳 (P. Baumgärtner)：《黑马书的统一性》(Die Einheit des Hermas-Buches)。弗赖堡 (Freiburg)，1889年。他在希尔根费尔德与林克之间采取折中立场，认为此书由同一作者在不同时期写成。

I. 《黑马牧人书》⁹⁸ 之所以得此书名，是因为作者自称黑马，并受一位身着牧人装束的悔改天使教导。它的文学形式不同于使徒教父的一切其他作品。这是最古老的基督教寓言作品，是一部启示文学，也是一种教诲性的宗教传奇。这在一定程度上说明了它何以在古代教会如此广受欢迎。人们常将它与班扬 (Bunyan) 的《天路历程》(Pilgrim’s Progress) 和但丁 (Dante) 的《神曲》(Divina Commedia) 相比，虽然它的文学成就远逊于这两部作品，神学也与它们大不相同。长期以来，人们只能通过一部古老而不准确的拉丁文译本认识它，该译本最初由法伯·斯塔普伦西斯于1513年刊行；但自1856年和1862年以来，我们也拥有了它的希腊文原文，共有两个文本：一个来自阿索斯山，由兰布罗斯重新发现并加以校勘；另一个来自西奈山，但不完整。

性质与内容。《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae) 是一种披着寓言外衣的基督教道德体系；鉴于审判之日迅速临近，它呼召已经有些沉睡而世俗化的教会悔改并更新。全书分为三卷：⁹⁹

异象；共有四个赐给作者的异象和启示，教会在其中向他显现，起初是一位身着光明衣裳、手持书卷的尊贵妇人，继而是一座塔，最后则是一位童女。所有异象的目的，都是呼召黑马，并借着他呼召教会悔改；如今悔改仍有可能，但当教会之塔建成时，悔改的机会便将终止。

很难断定作者是否确实见过这些异象，或自以为见过，还是像但丁的异象和班扬的梦一样，将它们虚构出来，作为一种引人入胜而有效的教导方式。

诫命，即十二条诫命，由一位身着牧人装束的守护天使颁布。
比喻，即十个比喻，教会在其中再次显现，不过这次呈现为一座建筑，而各种美德则以石头和树木的形象表现出来。这些比喻无疑受到了福音书中比喻的启发，但无论在优美还是在意蕴上，都无法与之相比。

场景设在罗马及其附近地区。书中提到了台伯河 (Tiber)，却未提及罗马的宫殿、宫廷、人民和社会，也未涉及任何古典著作。书中出现了一位老妇、童女和天使，但提及姓名的人物只有黑马、马克西穆斯 (Maximus)、革利免和格拉普特 (Grapte)。

《牧人书》(The Shepherd) 的文学价值微乎其微。它与使徒著作的质朴相去甚远，如今像地下墓窟中的绘画和雕刻一样，只具有考古意义。它平淡、冷峻、单调、反复，堆砌着令人索然无味的细节，但其中洋溢着对自然的纯真热爱和行善的炽热热忱。作者是一个出身民间、自学成才的人，对古典作家一无所知，也不为他们所知，却富于想象力，并有向民众施行宗教教导的才能。他从牧人与羊群、葡萄园与牧场、高塔与别墅，以及日常生活的言语和事件中，汲取智慧与敬虔的教训。

第一个异象颇能代表全书的面貌；它开篇宛如爱情故事，却很快转向严肃。以下是忠实的翻译：

“那抚养我长大的人，把我卖给了罗马一位名叫罗达 (Rhoda) 的妇人。¹⁰⁰ 许多年后，我又遇见她，便开始像爱姐妹一样爱她。此后不久，我看见她在台伯河中沐浴，便伸手给她，扶她出河。我看见她的美貌，心里想道：‘我若有这样美丽善良的妻子，该是何等幸福。’我只有这个念头，并无其他。

“过了一些时候，我到各村庄去，因上帝所造之物的伟大、美丽和力量而赞美它们，行走之际便睡着了。圣灵攫住我，带我经过一片无人能够穿越的旷野，因为那里遍地岩石，又因积水而无法通行。

“我渡过河，来到一片平原，便跪下来，开始向主祷告，承认我的罪。我正祷告的时候，天开了，我看见我所爱的那妇人从天上向我问安，说：‘黑马，愿你平安！’我看见她，就对她说：‘夫人，你在这里做什么？’她回答说：‘我被接上来，是要在主面前揭露你的罪。’我对她说：‘你成了控告我的人吗？’她说：‘不是；但你要听我对你所说的话。住在天上、使万有从无而有、又为他圣洁的教会使万有繁衍增多的上帝，向你发怒，因为你得罪了我。’我回答她说：‘我得罪了你吗？怎么得罪的？我曾对你说过一句不合宜的话吗？我岂不一向视你为尊贵的妇人吗？我岂不一向像敬重姐妹一样敬重你吗？夫人啊，你为什么说这些邪恶污秽的谎言来攻击我呢？’她却微笑着对我说：‘邪恶的欲念已经进入你心里。一个义人若有邪恶的欲念进入心里，你不以为这是恶事吗？是的，这是罪，而且是大罪。’她又说：‘因为义人筹划公义的事，因筹划公义的事，他的荣耀就在天上得以坚立；他在一切所行的事上，也都蒙主怜悯。但那些心怀恶念的人，却使自己陷入死亡和被掳的境地，尤其是那些眷恋这世界、以自己的财富为荣，却不持守将来美好事物的人。那些没有盼望、自暴自弃、糟蹋自己生命的人，他们的灵魂必深深懊悔。但你要向上帝祷告，你的罪就必得医治，你全家和众圣徒的罪也必如此。’

“她说完这些话，天便闭上了；我留在那里，浑身战栗，心中极其不安。我自言自语说：‘若把这罪记在我的账上，我怎能得救呢？我的罪如此众多，我怎能使上帝息怒呢？我又该用什么言语求主怜悯我呢？’

“我正思量这些事，在心中反复思想的时候，看见面前有一把用羊毛制成的白色大椅子；有一位老妇人走来，身穿极其光耀的衣服，手中拿着一本书，独自坐在椅子上，向我问安，说：‘黑马，愿你平安！’我悲伤流泪，对她说：‘夫人，愿你平安！’她对我说：‘黑马啊，你为什么忧愁？你素来忍耐、温和，总是面带笑容。你为什么面带愁容，又为什么不喜乐呢？’我对她说：‘夫人啊，一位极其尊贵的妇人责备了我，说我得罪了她。’她对我说：‘上帝的仆人断不可做这样的事。但你心中必定曾对她生出欲念。这样的意念使上帝的仆人受罪的控告；因为一个敬虔、经过试炼的心灵，竟渴望行恶，这是邪恶而可憎的意念；尤其是贞洁的黑马竟然如此——他原是禁绝一切恶欲、满有纯朴和无邪的人！’

“‘然而，’她继续说，‘上帝向你发怒，并不是为这件事，而是要你使你的家人归正；他们既得罪了主，也得罪了你这作父亲的。但你因爱自己的儿女（φιλότεκνος ὤν^*），便没有责备你的家人，反倒任凭他们变得极其邪恶。主因此向你发怒；但他必医治从前发生在你家中的一切恶事，因为你家人的罪孽和不义，使你被今生的事务败坏了。然而，主的怜悯顾惜了你和你的家人，必使你刚强，使你在他的荣耀中得以坚立。只要不懈怠，总要壮胆，坚固你的家。正如铁匠用锤子锤打所作的器物，成就自己的心愿，照样，每日公义的话语也必胜过一切不义。因此，不可疏于责备你的儿女，因为我知道，他们若全心悔改，就必与众圣徒一同记在生命册上。’

“她说完这些话，就对我说：‘你愿意听我诵读吗？’我对她说：‘是的，夫人，我愿意。’她对我说：‘你要留心聆听上帝荣耀的事。’于是，我以一种伟大而奇妙的方式，听见了记忆所无法留存的话；因为那些话无不令人敬畏，超乎人所能承受的。不过，最后几句话我记住了，因为这些话对我们有益，而且温和：‘看哪，那大有能力的上帝，以他不可见的力量和他的大智慧创造了世界，以他宏伟的谋略为所造之物加上荣耀的冠冕，以他大能的话语坚立穹苍，将大地奠定在众水之上，又以自己的智慧和预见建立了他的圣洁教会，并赐福给她！看哪，他使穹苍、群山、丘陵和星辰都离开原位，万物在他的选民面前都变得平坦，为要将他所应许的福分，带着极大的荣耀和喜乐赐给他们，只要他们以坚定的信心遵守所领受的上帝的律法。’

“她读完以后，从椅子上起来，就有四个少年人前来，抬起椅子，向东方去了。随后她叫我来，摸着我的胸膛，对我说：‘你喜欢我所读的吗？’我对她说：‘夫人，最后这些话我喜欢，但先前那些却艰深严厉。’她便对我说：‘最后这些是为义人说的，先前那些却是为异教徒和背道者说的。’她还在对我说话的时候，有两个人出现，将她抱起，向东方去了，就是那椅子去的方向。她欢欢喜喜地离去；离去时还说：‘黑马啊，要壮胆！’

黑马 (Hermas) 的神学注重伦理和实践。他不持思辨性的见解，也不懂神学的专门术语。他视基督教为一种新律法，最强调实践。在这一点上，他与雅各相似，却忽略了雅各用以区别“完全”的基督教律法与不完全、使人受奴役的旧律法的“自由”。他不仅教导善行的功德，也教导善行有超义务的功德，并认为殉道具有赎罪的效力。他对福音所知甚少，甚至一无所知，从不提及这个词，也不懂使人称义的信心，尽管他把信心视为首要的美德和众德之母。他着重论述人的责任和行为，过于上帝恩慈的应许和拯救的作为。总之，他的基督教彻底带有律法主义和禁欲主义的色彩，比使徒教父的任何其他著作都更远离福音的精神。书中从未提及基督的名字，也未举出他的榜样供人效法（这才是基督徒生活的真正观念）；然而，他以“上帝的儿子”的身份出现，被描绘为先存且具有严格意义上的神性。¹⁰¹ “基督徒”一词也从未出现。

然而，就我们从暗示和比喻所能判断的而言，这种贫乏的基督教观非但不是异端或分裂派的见解，反倒与大公正统信仰紧密相连。黑马与罗马教会（在革利免或庇护 (Pius) 主持之下）保持着密切而正常的关系，并对他称为“圣洁教会”的普世教会抱有崇高的看法。他把她描绘为上帝首先创造的受造物，世界乃为她而造；她虽年老，却不断变得年轻。然而，他又将这理想的教会与现实的教会区分开来，将后者描绘为腐败的。他的这一观念，可能部分得自《以弗所书》；在保罗的著作中，只有这封书信是他显然熟悉的。他认为水洗是得救不可或缺的条件，即使旧约时期敬虔的犹太人也不例外；他们在阴间从使徒领受了洗礼。¹⁰² 他没有提及圣餐，但这只是偶然的遗漏。全书都建立在一种排他性的教会观之上：教会以外别无救恩。全书以天使一段颇具特色的劝勉作结：“你们这些从主领受了属世福分的人，要行善，免得你们还在耽延之时，高塔（教会）的建造便已完成；因为建造的工作是为你们的缘故才中断的。因此，你们若不赶快行义，高塔就必完工，你们就要被关在外面了。”

黑马的神学有许多取自犹太人的启示文学，即伪托以诺 (Enoch)、以斯拉 (Esdras) 的著作，以及已经失传的《伊利达与米达书》(Book of Eldad and Medad)。¹⁰³ 他的天使论也是如此。他教导说，最先受造的六位天使主持了教会的建造。他们的首领米迦勒 (Michael) 将律法写在信徒心中；悔改的天使保守悔改者不再堕落，并设法领回失足的人。十二位善灵以基督徒的美德命名，黑马看见她们以童女的形象出现，她们引领信徒进入天国；另有十二位污灵，以同样数目的罪恶命名，阻挠信徒。每个人都有一位善的和一位恶的守护灵。甚至爬行动物和其他动物，也各有一位主管的天使。哲罗姆斥责最后这一观念为愚妄，实属公允。

若从使徒时期犹太基督教与外邦基督教之间的冲突来评判黑马，就会造成混淆和误导。¹⁰⁴ 那场冲突已经过去。约翰的福音书和书信中已不见其踪迹。罗马的革利免提到彼得与保罗时，将二人视为不可分离的。这两种类型已融合为一个大公教会的家庭，继续在同一组织中作为彼此协作的要素而存在；但人们对它们的理解仍很不充分，尤其对保罗那使人自由的福音更是如此。犹太教和异教的特征又重新出现，或者说，它们从未消失，并发挥着或善或恶的影响。因此，在大公教会的全部历史中，始终贯穿着一种律法主义或犹太化的倾向，以及一种福音主义或保罗式的倾向；后者在宗教改革中占了上风，产生了新教基督教。黑马最接近雅各，离保罗最远；他的朋友罗马的革利免则更接近保罗，离雅各较远；然而，无论哪一个，都没有想到使徒之间存在敌对的冲突。

与圣经的关系。黑马是使徒教父中唯一既不引用旧约圣经，也不引用我主话语的人。这种缺失，部分是由于《牧人书》(Shepherd) 所具有的先知性；因为预言本身就是自己的凭据，并以神圣的权威发言。不过，有迹象表明，他熟悉新约中的几卷书，尤其是《马可福音》《雅各书》和《以弗所书》。书中从未提及保罗的名字，但也没有提及其他使徒。因此，从这种沉默推断他有反保罗的倾向，是错误的。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 同样没有提及保罗的名字，却显出他熟悉保罗的著作。¹⁰⁵

V. 与孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的关系。黑马与孟他努派共同之处，在于宣称有先知的恩赐，以及在纪律上持严苛主义；但后者兴起于半个世纪以后，二者并无历史上的联系。而且，他对纪律的热忱并未走向分裂教会的极端。他使受洗后获得赦免与赦罪成为难事，却并非不可能；他认为独身有额外的功德，而且似乎曾为自己不幸的婚姻感到懊悔，但他既容许第二次悔改，也容许再婚，至少在主再来以前如此；他与巴拿巴一样，认为主的再来已近在眼前。因此，作为孟他努派的德尔图良谴责黑马。

作者与成书年代。有五种可能的意见。(a) 作者就是保罗于58年在《罗马书》16:14中问候的那位朋友。这是最古老的意见，也最能解释本书何以享有崇高的权威。¹⁰⁶ (b) 作者是罗马长老兼主教革利免（公元92–101年）的同时代人。此说以本书自身的见证为依据。¹⁰⁷ (c) 作者是罗马主教庇护 (Pius，140年) 的兄弟。一位170年的佚名作者在《穆拉多利正典残篇》(Muratorian fragment of the canon) 中如此断言。¹⁰⁸ 但他可能把年长与年轻的两位黑马同拉丁文译者混淆了。(d) 本书出自两三位作者之手，于图拉真 (Trajan) 在位期间、112年以前开始写作，至140年由庇护的兄弟完成。¹⁰⁹ (e) 黑马是一个虚构的名字，用以赋予《牧人书》使徒的权威。(f) 埃塞俄比亚译本中有一项孤立的断言，几乎不值得一提：使徒保罗以黑马为名撰写了《牧人书》，而这个名字是路司得 (Lystra) 居民给他的。

我们采纳第二种看法；它也可以与第一种结合。作者自称黑马，并表明自己与罗马的革利免同时，而革利免将负责把他的书送往外地的教会。¹¹⁰ 这一见证清楚明确，其分量必定超过其他一切见证。如果保罗提到的黑马在58年还是一个年轻门徒，那么他很可能活到图拉真的时代；而且，他明确表示，自己写作时已是老人。

我们还从作者得知，他是一个颇为不幸的丈夫，又是几个不肖儿子的父亲；由于他自己以及那些被他疏于管教的儿子的罪，他在经商中失去了财富，后来却醒悟悔改，如今亲自出来，作一个朴实的传义道者，虽然并无任何正式职分，看来只是一位平信徒。¹¹¹ 他从前是奴隶，被主人卖给罗马一位名叫罗大 (Rhoda) 的基督徒妇女。有人根据他的希腊文文风，推断他生于埃及，在一个犹太家庭中长大。¹¹² 但他起初将那位代表教会的老妇人误认为异教的西比拉女先知 (Sibyl)，这一事实反倒暗示他出身外邦人。他对旧约先知经书完全缄默，也可使我们作出同样的推断。他没有述及自己的归信。

本书可能写于第一世纪末或第二世纪初。书中没有教阶组织的痕迹，并以长老与主教为同一职分；甚至罗马的革利免也未被称为主教。¹¹³ 书中确实把教会的状况描绘得十分腐败，但正如我们从书信和《启示录》中所见，腐败在使徒时期就已开始。在爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的时代，本书已受到极高的推崇，这表明它起源甚早。

权威与价值。在使徒后时期的文献中，没有一部作品在公众评价上经历过如此巨大的变迁。《牧人书》是一本适合当时时代、却不适合一切时代的书。对于第二、第三世纪的基督徒，它具有一部来自灵界的小说所能具有的一切魅力，正如班扬 (Bunyan) 的《天路历程》(Pilgrims’ Progress) 在今日一样。甚至到了优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆的时代，它仍在公共礼拜中被宣读，并被附于圣经抄本之后（如《西奈抄本》〔Codex Sinaiticus〕，其中本书接在《巴拿巴书信》之后）。爱任纽引用它，称之为“神圣的经书”。¹¹⁴ 亚历山大的教父们虽然学识渊博，却缺乏健全的批判辨别力，将它视为“受上帝默示的”；不过，奥利金 (Origen) 暗示，另一些人的评价并没有这么高。¹¹⁵ 优西比乌将它与《巴拿巴书信》《保罗行传》等列入虽属正统却是“伪托”的书籍之中；亚他那修 (Athanasius) 则将它与旧约次经等量齐观，认为有助于慕道教导。

在本书发源的拉丁教会中，它从未获得如此崇高的权威。《穆拉多利正典》将它视为伪经，并指出：“它应当被阅读，¹¹⁶ 但不应在教会中公开使用，也不应列在先知或使徒的著作之中。”德尔图良对它关于第二次悔改仍有可能以及再婚合法的教导深感不满，甚至以轻蔑的口吻谈论它。¹¹⁷ 哲罗姆在一处也如此，尽管他在另一处却恭敬地论及它。¹¹⁸ 安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 和奥古斯丁都不提它。教皇格拉修一世 (Gelasius I) 的谕令（约500年）将本书斥为伪经。从那时起，它便与所有伪经命运相同，完全被人忽视。希腊文原本甚至失踪了几个世纪，直到十九世纪中叶才意外重现，重新引起人们的兴趣；它作为大公基督教发展中的一个环节，也考验着学者们的才智。

附注

《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae) 早已不再被人作为灵修或消遣读物。我们在此补充几种现代人的意见。莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)（他读这本书必定十分浮浅）断言，黑马笔下天上诸灵的谈话，比他那个时代理发师的闲谈还要愚蠢乏味，并据此认定黑马若非傻子，便是骗子。据本生 (Bunsen) 所述，大历史学家尼布尔 (Niebuhr) 常说，他怜悯那些不得不在教会中听人诵读这样一本书的雅典基督徒〔为什么不是罗马基督徒呢？〕。本生本人则称它为“一部用意良善却愚蠢的传奇”。

另一方面，欧文派 (Irvingite) 的一些学者，如蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 博士和加布 (Gaâb) 先生，又恢复了古老的信念，认为这些异象有超自然的基础，是使徒时期罗马教会中有人实际看见并记录下来的，只是在后来庇护时期被编纂者改动，并掺入了错误。加布认为，黑马蒙赐看见异象的能力，其受默示的意义与斯威登堡 (Swedenborg) 相同。

韦斯科特 (Westcott) 认为《牧人书》具有“最高的价值”，“因为它表明，基督教如何受到犹太原则之影响的危害，而这与犹太形式的影响有别”。《新约正典史》(Hist. of the Canon of the N. T)，第173页（第2版）。

唐纳森 (Donaldson，一位自由派的苏格兰长老会信徒) 认为，《牧人书》“理应引起特别的兴趣，因为它是现存第一部以引导灵魂归向上帝为主要努力方向的作品。其他宗教书籍关乎教会内部的活动，唯独此书专门论及人为上帝而活所必需的巨大转变……它的信条非常简短而朴素。它的主要目的是展现归信所蕴含的道德，并且很能唤起人对于那些随时准备攻击他的属灵仇敌的真切认识。”（《使徒教父》〔Ap. Fath.,〕，第339页。）但他又指出（第336页）：“古代基督徒以及许多现代基督徒对这部作品的尊崇，最能彻底显示古今基督徒感受之间的巨大差异。”

乔治·A. 杰克逊 (George A. Jackson，一位美国公理会信徒) 的评价更为有利（《使徒教父》〔Ap. Fath.,〕，1879年，第15页）：“阅读《牧人书》，并记得它出现于一个与尤维纳利斯 (Juvenal) 所讽刺的社会相差无几的社会中，我们就不再惊讶早期基督徒何以如此尊崇它，反倒几乎要与他们一同称它为受默示的书了。”

牛津的胡尔 (Hoole) 先生赞同亚他那修的判断，并将它的文学品质与罗马地下墓窟中虔诚而粗朴的艺术置于同等地位。

都柏林的萨蒙 (Salmon) 博士将黑马比作萨沃纳罗拉 (Savonarola)；后者真诚地相信：(a) 他那个时代的教会已经腐败而世俗化；(b) 一场大患难即将来临，渣滓将在其中被炼除；(c) 在此之前仍有一段可供悔改的时间；(d) 他自己蒙上帝差遣，要作宣讲这悔改之道的人。

§ 169. 帕皮亚 (Papias)

(I.) 帕皮亚残篇收于劳思 (Routh)：《圣文遗存》(Reliquiae, Sacrae,)，第II版，牛津 (Oxf.)，1846年，第I卷，第3–16页。冯·格布哈特 (Von Gebhardt) 与哈纳克 (Harnack)：《使徒教父》(Patres Apost.,)，附录：《帕皮亚残篇》(Papice Fragmenta,)，I，第180–196页。英译见罗伯茨 (Roberts) 与唐纳森 (Donaldson) 编《尼西亚前文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，I，第441–448页。

论及帕皮亚的段落见爱任纽：《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.,)，v. 33，§§ 3、4。优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 36、39；《编年史》(Chron.)，第220届奥林匹亚纪年条，舍内 (Schöne) 编本，II，第162页。此外还有少量较晚的记载；见劳思及莱比锡版《使徒教父》(P. A.)。耶稣会士阿卢瓦 (Halloix) 所著《圣帕皮亚传》(Vita S. Papiae,)，杜埃 (Duaei)，1633年，充满了对这位圣徒的出生、教育、按立、主教职务及著述活动的幻想叙述，而关于他的真实情况，我们所知极少。

(II.) 关于帕皮亚的专题论文，大多与福音书问题有关，作者如下：施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)（论他关于马太和马可的见证，载《研究与评论》〔Studien und Kritiken〕，1832年，第735页）；Th. 察恩 (Th. Zahn)（同刊〔ibid.〕，1866年，第IV期，第649页及后）；G. E. 施泰茨 (G. E. Steitz)（载《研究与评论》〔Studien und Kritiken〕，1868年，第1期，第63–95页；另有赫尔措格《百科全书》〔Herzog’s Encyc.〕“帕皮亚”条，第I版，第XI卷，第78–86页；莱姆巴赫〔Leimbach〕修订于第II版，第XI卷，第194–206页）；詹姆斯·唐纳森 (James Donaldson)（《使徒教父》〔The Apost. Fathers〕，1874年，第393–402页）；莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教（载《当代评论》〔Contemporary Review〕，1875年8月，第377–403页；针对《超自然宗教》〔Supernatural Religion〕中的错误陈述，仔细考察帕皮亚关于《马可福音》和《马太福音》的见证）；莱姆巴赫（《帕皮亚残篇》〔Das Papiasfragment,〕，1875年）；魏芬巴赫 (Weiffenbach)（《帕皮亚残篇》〔Das Papiasfragment,〕，1874及1878年）；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgefeld)（《科学神学杂志》〔Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.〕，1875年，第239页及后）；吕德曼 (Ludemann)（《帕皮亚残篇释义》〔Zur Erklärunq des Papiasfragments,〕，载《新教神学年鉴》〔Jahrbücher für protest. Theol.,〕，1879年，第365页及后）；H. 霍尔茨曼 (H. Holtzmann)（《帕皮亚与约翰》〔Papias und Johannes,〕，载希尔根费尔德〔Hilgenfeld〕编《科学神学杂志》〔Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theologie,〕，1880年，第64–77页）。另参韦斯科特的《新约正典》(Canon of the N. T.,)，第59–68页。

帕皮亚 (Papias) 是约翰的门徒¹¹⁹、坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的朋友，任弗吕家 (Phrygia) 希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 的主教，直到第二世纪中叶前后。据《逾越节编年史》(Paschal Chronicle) 中一项较晚的传说，他在别迦摩 (Pergamon) 殉道，与坡旅甲在士每拿 (Smyrna) 殉道约在同一时期。既然近来坡旅甲的卒年已从166年提前到155年，帕皮亚的卒年也须作相应的调整；又因他这位同时代的朋友至少活了86岁，帕皮亚很可能生于公元70年前后，因此他可能认识圣约翰、传福音的圣腓利，以及其他在耶路撒冷被毁以后仍然在世的早期门徒。

帕皮亚是一位敬虔、笃诚而博学的圣经研究者，也是忠实的传统传承者，尽管有些轻信，理解力也有限。¹²⁰他将天上的宝贝放在瓦器里。他的交游使他具有相当的分量。他追溯到了基督教信仰的原始源头。他说：“凡我随时确实查明并珍藏在记忆里的事，都是从长老们（παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων^*）领受的；我将这些事记录下来，以我的见证进一步确证真理。我乐于将它们附在我的〔《主的圣言》〕解释之后。因为我不像多数人那样，喜爱那些多言的人，而是喜爱教导真理的人；也不喜爱那些记述别人命令〔或新奇命令〕的人，而是喜爱那些记述主为我们的信仰所赐、出于真理本身之命令的人。因此，若有曾经追随长老们的人前来，我总要询问长老们说过什么：安得烈说过什么，彼得说过什么，或腓利、多马、雅各、约翰、马太，或我们主的其他门徒说过什么；以及主的门徒亚里斯提翁 (Aristion) 和长老约翰现在说些什么。因为我认为，从书本所得的益处，不及从活泼而长存的声音所得的益处。”¹²¹他极其热心地搜集使徒及其门徒关于耶稣言行的口传，并将其编为五卷出版，题为《主的言论释义》(Explanation of the Lord’s Discourses)。¹²²

可惜这部在第十三世纪尚存的著作如今已经散佚，只留下若干珍贵而有趣的残篇，主要保存在爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的著作中。其中包括他关于马太的希伯来文福音书和具有彼得渊源的《马可福音》的见证；在一切讨论福音书起源的批判研究中，这些见证都占有显著地位。¹²³有些抄本载于《约翰福音》7:53–8:11，或《路加福音》21:38之后的那段行淫时被拿的妇人的插曲，也被追溯到同一来源，或许原是为了阐明基督在《约翰福音》8:15所说的话（“我却不判断人”）；因为优西比乌记载，帕皮亚“另述一事，涉及一个被人恶意控告在主面前犯了许多罪的妇人，此事载于《希伯来人福音》”。¹²⁴若果真如此，我们就当感谢他保存了一件宝贵的事实：这件事极其鲜明地同时显明了救主对待罪时绝对的纯洁，以及他对罪人温柔的怜悯。帕皮亚是一位热忱的千禧年论者 (chiliast)；他托主之口所述、而爱任纽信以为真的那个著名比喻，描绘了千禧年间物产的丰饶，或许原是为了解释主关于葡萄汁的话：他要在父的国里喝新的；见《马太福音》26:29。¹²⁵他的千禧年论并不能证明他有犹太化的倾向，因为这是第二世纪盛行的观点。他还记述了两个神迹：一个是死人复活的事，发生在传福音的腓利在世之时，是他从腓利的女儿们那里听来的；另一个是犹士都·巴撒巴 (Justus Barsabas) 喝下毒物却没有受害的事。

帕皮亚证明，第二世纪的人何等重视使徒及其门徒的口传。他站在一个新时代的门槛上；当时，使徒时期最后的见证人正在迅速凋零，搜集那些尚存的、出于默示的智慧片段，似乎成了极其重要的事，因为它们可以阐明主的教训，保护教会免陷错误。

但他也是第二世纪中叶以前正典状况的一位重要见证人。他熟悉前两卷福音书，而且极有可能也熟悉《约翰福音》，因为优西比乌明确说，他曾引用《约翰一书》；这封书信在思想和文体上与第四卷福音书极其相似，因此，两者出于同一作者这一判断，必定一同成立或一同被推翻。¹²⁶他是证明《约翰启示录》的默示性和可信性最早的见证人之一，并且曾为其中一部分作注。¹²⁷他使用过《彼得前书》，但据我们所知，他对保罗和路加却未置一词。人们对此有种种解释，或认为是偶然，或认为是无知，或认为是反感；但最好的解释，还是他只以搜集主的话为写作宗旨。黑马 (Hermas) 和殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 同样没有提及保罗，却都熟悉他的著作。帕皮亚与坡旅甲交谊深厚，而坡旅甲在其书信中颂扬保罗；由此可以推断，帕皮亚对这位伟大的使徒并无敌意。

附注

帕皮亚与使徒约翰的关系，至今仍有争议。最早的见证人爱任纽，本人也是坡旅甲的学生，称帕皮亚为Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος^*（《驳异端》〔Adv. Haer.〕V. 33, 4），即约翰的听道者、坡旅甲的同伴。他这里显然必定是指使徒约翰。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 及后来的作者——宣信者马克西穆 (Maximus Confessor)、克里特的安得烈 (Andrew of Crete) 和西奈的阿纳斯塔修 (Anastasius Sinaita)——都沿袭他的说法，称帕皮亚为使徒约翰的门徒。察恩 (Zahn) 博士（1866年）以渊博的学识和敏锐的洞察力为这一观点辩护；米利根 (Milligan) 博士也独立提出了同样的辩护（论《长老约翰》〔John the Presbyter〕，载考珀〔Cowper〕编《圣经文献杂志》〔Journal of Sacred Literature〕，1867年10月，第106页及后）。他们的前提是，使徒约翰与“长老约翰”是同一个人；参《约翰二书》和《约翰三书》，作者在其中自称ὁ πρεσβύτερος^*，即“长老”。里根巴赫 (Riggenbach)（论使徒约翰与长老约翰，载《德国神学年鉴》〔Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie〕，1868年，第319–334页）、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、莱姆巴赫 (Leimbach) 也持相同观点（沙弗在《使徒教会史》〔History of the Apost. Ch.〕，1853年，第421页，亦同）。

另一方面，优西比乌（《教会史》〔H. E.〕III. 39）推断，帕皮亚将使徒约翰与所谓的“长老约翰”（ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης^*）加以区别，而且他只是这位长老的学生。他作此区分的根据，是他从《主的言论释义》(Explanation of the Lord’s Discourses) 序言所引的一段残篇；帕皮亚在那里说，他查考了原始传统：τί Ἀνδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν^*〔过去时〕，ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί Ἰωάννης^*〔使徒〕ἢ Ματθαῖος, ἢ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, οἱ τοῦ κυρίου^*〔不是τῶν ἀποστόλων^*〕μαθηταὶ, λέγουσιν^*〔现在时〕。这里似乎清楚地区分了两位约翰；但长老约翰与一位身世不详的亚里斯提翁，同样被称为主的门徒（而不是使徒的门徒）。施泰茨 (Steitz)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、凯姆 (Keim)、魏芬巴赫 (Weiffenbach)、吕德曼 (Lüdemann)、唐纳森 (Donaldson)、韦斯科特 (Westcott) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 都坚持这一区分。为证实这一观点，优西比乌说，以弗所 (Ephesus) 有两座坟墓供人指认，都以约翰为名（III 39: δύο ἐν Ἐφέσῳ γενέσθαι μνήματα, καὶ ἑκάτερον Ἰωάννου ἔτι νῦν λέγεσθαι^*）。但哲罗姆在《名人传》(De Vir. ill.) 第9章提出，这两座墓都不过是纪念使徒的遗迹。除此以外，这位神秘的长老约翰便全无可知；反对千禧年论的亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alexandria) 认为他是《启示录》的作者，这纯粹是一种批判性的推测（优西比乌，VII. 25）。中世纪“祭司王约翰”("Prester John") 传说的主要内容，无疑另有来源。

无论如何，帕皮亚像他的朋友坡旅甲一样，曾经见过那位活到第一世纪末或第二世纪初的年迈使徒，并听过他的教导，这当然是可能的。因此，没有必要指责爱任纽弄错了姓名或记忆有误。更有可能的是优西比乌误解了帕皮亚，应当为那位虚构的约翰负责；这位约翰给《约翰启示录》的作者问题带来了极大的混乱。

§ 170. 《致丢格那妥书》

版本

《致丢格那妥书》(Epistola Ad Diognetum)，奥托 (Otto) 编（附拉丁文译文、导论及校勘注释），第II版，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1852年。

收于 O. 冯·格布哈特 (O. v. Gebhardt) 与 Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad Harnack) 编《使徒教父》莱比锡版，I，第216–226页；亦收于 赫费勒—丰克 (Hefele-Funk) 编蒂宾根版，I，第310–333页。

W. A. 霍伦贝格 (W. A. Hollenberg)：《致丢格那妥书》(Der Brief an Diognet)。柏林 (Berl.)，1853年。

E. M. 克伦克尔 (E. M. Krenkel)：《致丢格那妥书》(Epistola, ad Diogn.)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1860年。

英译本：载基托 (Kitto) 编《圣经文献杂志》(Journal of S. Lit.)，1852年；又载《尼西亚前文库》(Ante-Nicene Library) 第I卷，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1867年。

法译本：P. 勒格拉 (P. le Gras) 译，巴黎，1725年；M. 德热努德 (M. de Genoude) 译，1838年；A. 凯泽 (Kayser) 译，1856年。

研究论著

奥托：《论〈致丢格那妥书〉》(De Ep. ad Diognetum)。1852年。

A. 凯泽：《致丢格那妥书》(La Lettre à Diognète)，1856年（载《神学评论》〔Révue de Théologie〕）。

G. J. 斯努克 (G. J. Snoeck)：《〈致丢格那妥书〉导论神学试论》(Specimen theologicum exhibens introductionem in Epistolan ad Diogn.)。莱顿 (Lugd. Bat.)，1861年。

唐纳森：《基督教文献批判史》等 (A Critical Hist. of Christian Liter., etc.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1866年，II，第126页及后。他曾倾向于认为，此书是其首位编者亨利·斯蒂芬斯 (Henry Stephens) 伪造的，但后来放弃了这个奇特的假说；科特里尔 (Cotterill) 却又在其《佩雷格里努斯·普罗透斯》(Peregrinus Proteus)，1879年，重申了这一说法。

弗朗茨·奥弗贝克 (Franz Overbeck)：《论伪托游斯丁的〈致丢格那妥书〉》(Ueber den pseudo-justinischen Brief an Diognet)。巴塞尔 (Basel)，1872年。后经增补，又收入其《古代教会史研究》(Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche)（施洛斯—开姆尼茨〔Schloss-Chemnitz〕，1875年），第1–92页。他与唐纳森一样，将此书说成君士坦丁以后的一部虚构作品，但已受到希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、凯姆、利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和德雷泽克 (Dräseke) 的驳斥。

约翰·德雷泽克 (Joh. Dräseke)：《致丢格那妥书》(Der Brief an Diognetos)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1881年（207页）。反驳奥弗贝克和唐纳森。他认为德尔图良知道并使用过此书，而且此书很可能由一位基督教诺斯替派信徒（或许是阿佩勒斯〔Appelles〕）在罗马写成。此说不大可能。

海因里希·基恩 (Heinr. Kihn)（罗马天主教徒）：《〈致丢格那妥书〉的起源》(Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet)。布赖斯高的弗赖堡 (Freiburg i. B.)，1882年（XV及168页）。

泽米施 (Semisch)：“丢格那妥”(Diognet) 条，载赫尔措格《百科全书》第2版（Herzog²），III，第611–615页（另见其《殉道者游斯丁》〔Justin der Märt.〕，1840年，第I卷，第172页及后）；沙弗，载麦克林托克与斯特朗 (McClintock and Strong) 编百科全书，III，第807页及下页；伯克斯 (Birks)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 编辞典，II，第162–167页。

讨论过《致丢格那妥书》的还有尼安德、赫费勒 (Hefele)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、默勒 (Möhler)、本森 (Bunsen)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、多尔纳 (Dorner)、希尔根费尔德、莱希勒 (Lechler)、鲍尔、哈纳克、察恩、丰克 (Funk)、利普修斯、凯姆（尤见《罗马与基督教》〔Rom und das Christhum〕，第460–468页）。

这篇题为《致丢格那妥书》的文献，篇幅虽短，却极其宝贵；在基督教文献中，它一直无人知晓，¹²⁸直到1592年，巴黎博学的出版商亨利·斯蒂芬斯才以殉道者游斯丁的名义，将其希腊文与拉丁文刊行。¹²⁹他没有交代其资料来源。唯一确知的抄本，是第十三世纪的斯特拉斯堡抄本 (Strassburg Codex)；但即使这一抄本，也在库尼茨 (Cunitz) 教授为奥托的版本作过详尽校勘之后，毁于1870年围城期间斯特拉斯堡的一场意外火灾。¹³⁰笼罩这篇文献起源的谜团如此之大，以致有些现代学者竟认真地将其说成君士坦丁以后模仿早期基督教的一部虚构作品，却无法就作者、作者的时代或国籍达成一致。

然而，这位第二世纪最默默无闻的作家，同时也是最光辉灿烂的作家；他的姓名至今不为人知，但在基督徒之名遭受犹太人和外邦人攻击、亵渎，只有冒生命危险才能承认的时代，他却为这名增添了光彩。他应与《约伯记》和《希伯来书》那些惟有上帝知道的“伟大无名氏”作者并列。

丢格那妥 (Diognetius) 是一位好学求知的异教徒，社会地位崇高，富有教养；他希望了解基督徒宗教的起源与性质，了解他们轻看世界、临死无惧、彼此相爱的秘诀，也想知道，这种与希腊人的诸神和犹太人的迷信如此不同的新风尚，为何出现得这样晚。有一位同名的斯多亚派哲学家，曾在马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 年轻时（约133年）教他绘画和写作，并训练他过阿提卡式的简朴生活，以及学习“凡属希腊教养的其他同类事物”。也许他还教导奥勒留轻视基督徒殉道者，把他们英勇的胆量归结为纯粹的顽固。这里的丢格那妥 (Diognetus) 很可能就是这位皇帝的老师；因为他特别想知道，是什么使这些基督徒能够“轻看世界，视死如轻”。¹³¹
我们面前的这封书信，正是对这位高贵异教徒所提问题的答复。它以切身经验为依据，为基督徒的生活和教义作了简短而精妙的辩护。显然，作者是一位富有天才、品味高雅而又深具古典修养的人。此书以清新热烈的信仰、丰富的思想和优美的文体见长；总而言之，它是基督教古代最优美的遗篇之一，使徒教父的任何真作都不能超越它，甚至很难与之匹敌。¹³²
内容。这篇文献共分十二章。开篇致意丢格那妥，称他极其渴望了解基督教的教义及敬拜方式，以及它们与希腊人和犹太人的区别。作者为有此机会引导一位外邦朋友走上真理之路而欢喜，先揭露偶像的虚妄（第2章），再揭露犹太人的迷信（第3、4章）；随后以鲜明的对照，生动而真实地描绘基督徒的生活：他们在这世界中生活，犹如那看不见、永不朽坏的灵魂住在看得见、终必朽坏的身体里（第5、6章）；¹³³接着阐述基督降临所带来的福益（第7章）。他继而描写基督降临以前世界的悲惨境况（第8章），并回答他为何如此迟才显现的问题（第9章）。就在这一论述中，有一段优美的救赎论述，比爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 以前所能找到的任何同类文字都更为充实、明晰。¹³⁴最后，他叙述基督教信仰所产生的福分与道德果效（第10章）。末后两章可能是一位较年轻的同时代人增补的，抄本中也标明了这一点；这两章联系乐园中的分别善恶树和生命树，论及知识、信仰和属灵生命。信仰开启了一座乐园，使人对超自然世界的奥秘有更高的认识。

《致丢格那妥书》构成了从使徒教父纯重实践的文献，向护教士深思明辨的神学的过渡。其中仍燃烧着起初爱心的热情。它带有浓厚的保罗色彩。¹³⁵它洋溢着自由的精神，以及扎根于信仰的更高知识。它不涉及旧约，却毫无诺斯替派轻蔑旧约的迹象。

作者与写作年代。作者自称“使徒的门徒”，¹³⁶但这句话出现在附录中，也可以按较广的意义理解。抄本将这封信归于殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)，但它的文体比游斯丁更为优雅、雄健而简练，思想也更为独创有力。¹³⁷不过，它极有可能属于同一时代，即第二世纪中叶，而且宁可说偏早，而非偏晚。书中的基督教，在贵族社会看来仍是一种新奇而陌生的事物，是世界中的异乡客，处处遭受犹太人和外邦人的毁谤与逼迫。这一切都符合安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 和马可·奥勒留统治时期的情形。如果丢格那妥确如前文所说，是后者的老师，那么这便提示我们，罗马可能是此书的写作地点。

有人把这封信定在更早的图拉真 (Trajan) 或哈德良 (Hadrian) 统治时期，¹³⁸有人定在马可·奥勒留统治时期，¹³⁹还有人定在第二世纪末，或更晚的时候。¹⁴⁰关于作者的种种推测，起自第一世纪的亚波罗 (Apollos)，止于第十六世纪的斯蒂芬斯 (Stephens)。他的身份很可能永远不为人知。¹⁴¹

§ 171. 罗马的西克斯图斯

《毕达哥拉斯派哲学家西克斯图斯手册》(Enchiridion SIXTI philosophi Pythagorici)，初版由桑福里安·尚皮耶 (Symphor. Champerius) 编刊，里昂 (Lugd.)，1507年（书名为《西克斯图斯之环》〔Sixtii Xysti Anulus〕）；1514年在维滕贝格与毕达哥拉斯的《金诗》(Carmina aurea) 合刊；贝阿图斯·雷纳努斯 (Beatus Rhenanus) 编本，巴塞尔 (Bas.)，1516年；又收入《古代教父文献大全》(Maxima Bibliotheca Vet. Patrum)，里昂，1677年，第III卷，第335–339页（题为《异教毕达哥拉斯派哲学家克西斯图斯或塞克斯图斯格言，阿奎莱亚长老鲁菲努斯译》〔Xysti vel Sexti Pythagorici philosophi ethnici Sententicae, interprete Rufino Presbytero Aquilejensi〕）；U. G. 西伯 (U. G. Siber) 编本，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1725年（署名为西克斯图斯二世，而非西克斯图斯一世）；以及吉尔德迈斯特 (Gildemeister) 编本（希腊文、拉丁文和叙利亚文），波恩，1873年。

叙利亚文译本载于 P. 拉加德 (P. Lagardii)《叙利亚文选集》(Analecta Syriaca)，莱比锡与伦敦 (Lips. and Lond.)，1858年（第1–31页，仅收叙利亚文文本，取自大英博物馆的七份抄本；最古的一份早于公元553年，但有残缺）。

讨论此书的文献有：《古代教父文献大全》(Max. Bibl.)，前引处（l. c.）；丰塔尼努斯 (Fontaninus)：《阿奎莱亚文学史》(Historia liter. Aquilejensis)，罗马 (Rom.)，1742年；法布里修斯 (Fabricius)，载《希腊文献集》(Bibliotheca Graeca)，第I卷，第870页及后（哈勒斯〔Harles〕编，1790年）；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)：《以色列民族史》(Geschichte des Volkes Israel)，第VII卷（哥廷根，1859年），第321–326页；以及托布勒 (Tobler)，载《鲁菲努斯之环：塞克斯图斯格言》(Annulus Rufini, Sent. Sext.)，图宾根，1878年。

克西斯图斯 (Xystus)，或按罗马人的拼法，塞克斯图斯 (Sextus)，亦即西克斯图斯一世 (Sixtus I.)，是罗马第六任主教，在哈德良统治期间任职约十年（119–128年）。¹⁴²关于他的事迹，我们所知极少，甚至一无所知；只知道人们曾认为，一部非凡的道德与宗教格言集出自他手。这部作品以希腊文写成，由鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 译为拉丁文，在古代教会中广为传阅。这些格言仿佛希伯来《箴言》和《登山宝训》，简短而深刻。它们不提先知或使徒，甚至不提基督的名字，却处处论及上帝，充满崇高的道德情操，只是稍稍接近泛神论。¹⁴³如果它出自一位异教哲学家，那么此人对于基督教伦理精神的领会，甚至比塞涅卡、爱比克泰德 (Epictetus)、普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 或马可·奥勒留更为接近；但这部作品无疑曾在基督徒手中经过改造，这便解释了它为何在古代广受欢迎，也使它有资格在教会文学史上占一席之地。鲁菲努斯翻译时改动甚多；此外，各抄本之间的差异也很大。

俄利根 (Origen) 最先在两处引述塞克斯图斯的《格言》或《箴言》(Gnomae 或 Sententiae，γνῶμαι Σέξτου^*)，称它是当时基督徒中广为人知、普遍阅读的一部作品，也就是在第二世纪上半叶；但他没有说作者是一位主教，甚至没有说他是基督徒。鲁菲努斯翻译此书时有所增补，并将它归于罗马主教、殉道者西克斯图斯。但精通古典文献的哲罗姆 (Jerome) 指责他，把一位基督教主教的名字冠在一个不认识基督、异教色彩极浓的毕达哥拉斯派哲学家克西斯图斯的作品上；最推崇这个人的，正是那些宣扬斯多亚派无动于衷之境与伯拉纠派无罪论的人。奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 起初认为作者是两位名叫西克斯图斯的罗马主教之一，后来却收回了这一看法，很可能是受到哲罗姆所言的影响。宣信者马克西穆斯 (Maximus the Confessor) 和大马士革的约翰 (John of Damascus) 将此书归于罗马的克西斯图斯。根纳迪乌斯 (Gennadius) 只称此书为《克西斯图斯格言》(Xysti Sententiae)。教皇格拉修 (Gelasius) 宣布它是伪作，出自异端之手。¹⁴⁴较近代的作者（如丰塔尼尼〔Fontanini〕、布鲁克尔〔Brucker〕、法布里修斯、莫斯海姆〔Mosheim〕）一致将它归于老昆图斯·塞克斯图斯或塞克斯提乌斯 (Quintus Sextus 或 Sextius，Q. S. Pater)；这位斯多亚派哲学家曾谢绝尤利乌斯·凯撒 (Julius Caesar) 授予他的罗马元老尊位，并受到塞涅卡的高度赞扬。他不吃动物性食物，每日结束时都严格自省。因此，这部书被近代教会史家完全忽略了。¹⁴⁵然而，刊行叙利亚文译本的保罗·德·拉加德 (Paul de Lagarde) 与埃瓦尔德，又重新使人注意此书，并将它视为第一位教皇克西斯图斯的真作。埃瓦尔德对它评价极高。他说：“基督徒的良心在这里首次出现在全世界面前，教导全世界当尽的本分，并以简短精警的句子体现基督徒的生活智慧。”¹⁴⁶然而，一位基督徒贤哲兼主教，若写一套基督教伦理学或一部基督教箴言集，竟连基督的名字都不提，似乎是不可能的。

附注

以下从《古代教父文献大全》(Bibliotheca Maxima Veterum Patrum) 第III卷第335–339页所载克西斯图斯的430条格言中，选录最重要的若干条，并附上一些相应的经文：

“1. Fidelis homo, electus homo est. 2. Electus homo, homo Dei est. 3. Homo Dei est, qui Deo dIgnus est. 4. Deo dIgnus est, qui nihil indigne agit. 5. Dubius in fide, infidelis est. 6. Infidelis homo, mortuus est corpore vivente. 7. Vere fidelis est, qui non peccat, atque etiam, in minimis caute agit. 8. Non est minimum in humana vita, negligere minima. 9. Omne peccatum impietatem puta. Non enim manus, vel oculus peccat, vel aliquod huiusmodi membrum, sed male uti manu vel oculo, peccatum est. 10. Omne membrum corporis, quod invitat te contra pudicitiam agere, abjiciendum est.

1. 有信的人是蒙拣选的人。2. 蒙拣选的人是属上帝的人。3. 配得上帝的人，才是属上帝的人。4. 凡事不行卑鄙之事的人，才配得上帝。5. 在信仰上疑惑的人，就是不信的人。6. 不信的人，虽身体活着，却已经死了。7. 真正有信的人不犯罪，甚至在最小的事上也谨慎行事。8. 在人生中，忽略小事并非小事。9. 当视一切罪为不敬虔。因为犯罪的不是手、眼，或任何这类肢体；滥用手或眼，才是罪。10. 身体上凡引诱你作出有违贞洁之事的肢体，都应当舍弃。

Melius est uno membro vivere, quam cum duobus puniri〔比较《马太福音》5:29〕……

宁可只有一个肢体而活，也不要两个肢体俱全而受刑。

“15. Sapiens vir, et pecuniae contemptor, similis est Deo. 16. Rebus mundanis in causis tantum necessariis utere. 17. Quae mundi sunt, mundo et quae Dei sunt, reddantur Deo〔比较《马太福音》22:21〕。18. Certus esto, quod animam tuam fidele depositum acceperis à Deo. 19. Cum loqueris Deo, scito quod judiceris à Deo. 20. Optimam purificationem putato, nocere nemini. 21. Enim purificatur Dei verbo per sapientiam ... .

智慧而轻看钱财的人，与上帝相似。16. 只在必要的事上使用世间之物。17. 属世界的当归给世界，属上帝的当归给上帝。18. 当确信，你的灵魂是从上帝领受、托你忠实保管的寄存之物。19. 你向上帝说话时，当知道自己正在受上帝审判。20. 当以不伤害任何人为最好的洁净。21. 因为人借着智慧，受上帝之道的洁净……

“28. Quaecumque fecit Deus, pro hominibus ea fecit. 29. Angelus minister est Dei ad hominem. 30. Tam pretiosus est homo apud Deum, quam angelus. 31. Primus beneficus est Deus: secundus est is, qui beneficii eius fit particeps homo. Vive igitur ita, tanquam qui sis secundus post Deum, et electus ab eo. 32. Habes, inquam, in te aliquid simile Dei, et ideo utere teipso velut templo Dei, propter illud quod te simile est Dei〔《哥林多前书》3:16、17〕……

上帝所造的一切，都是为人而造的。29. 天使是上帝派来服事人的仆役。30. 人在上帝面前，与天使同样宝贵。31. 首位的施恩者是上帝；其次，是那分享他恩惠的人。因此，你生活为人，当如一个仅次于上帝、蒙他拣选的人。32. 我说，你里面有某种与上帝相似的东西；因此，为了你里面这与上帝相似的东西，当把自己当作上帝的殿。

“40. Templum sanctum est Deo mens pii, et altare est optimum ei cor mundum et sine peccato. 41. Hostia soli Deo acceptabilis, benefacere hominibus pro Deo. 42. Deo gratiam praestat homo, qui quantum possibile est vivit secundum Deum ……

敬虔人的心思是归上帝为圣的殿；清洁无罪的心，是献给他的最佳祭坛。41. 惟一蒙上帝悦纳的祭，就是为上帝的缘故施恩于人。42. 凡尽其所能照上帝旨意生活的人，就是向上帝表达感谢。……

“47. Omne tempus, quo Deo non cogitas, hoc puta te perdidisse. 48. Corpus quidem tuum incedat in terra, anima autem semper sit apud Deum. 49. Intellige quae, sint bona, ut bene agas. 50. Bona cogitatio hominis Deum non latet et ideo cogitatio tua pura sit ab omni malo. 51. Dignus esto eo, qui te dignatus est filium dicere, et age omnia ut filius Dei. 52. Quod Deum patrem vocas, huius in actionibus tuis memor esto. 53. Vir castus et sine peccato, potestatem accepit a Deo esse filius Dei〔比较《约翰福音》1:13〕。54. Bona mens chorus est Dei. 55. Mala mens chorus est daemonum malorum ……

凡你不思想上帝的时刻，都当看作是虚度的。48. 你的身体固然行走在地上，你的灵魂却当常与上帝同在。49. 要明白何为善，才能行善。50. 人的善念不能向上帝隐藏，因此你的思想当清洁，远离一切恶。51. 当配得上那位俯就称你为儿子的主，凡事都要像上帝的儿子那样行。52. 你既称上帝为父，在一切行为中就当记住这一点。53. 贞洁无罪的人，已从上帝领受权柄，作上帝的儿子。54. 良善的心思是上帝的歌舞队。55. 邪恶的心思是恶鬼的歌舞队。……
Fundamentum pietatis est continentia: culmen autem pietatis amor Dei. 79. Pium hominem habeto tamquam teipsum. 80. Opta tibi evenire non quod vis, sed quod expedit. 81. Qualem vis esse proximum tuum tibi, talis esto et tu tais proximis〔《路加福音》6:31〕……
敬虔的根基是节制，敬虔的顶峰却是爱上帝。79. 当待敬虔人如同自己。80. 不要祈愿自己所欲的事临到，而要祈愿有益的事临到。81. 你愿意邻舍怎样待你，你也当怎样待邻舍。……

“86. Si quid non vis scire Deum, istud nec agas, nec cogites, 87. Priusquam agas quodcunque agis, cogita Deum, ut lux eius paecedat actus tuos ... .

凡你不愿上帝知道的事，既不要作，也不要想。87. 无论作什么，行动以前当先思想上帝，使他的光行在你的作为之前……

“96. Deus in bonis actibus hominibus dux est. 97. Neminem inimicum deputes. 98. Dilige omne quod eiusdem tecum naturae est, Deum vero plus quam animam dilige. 99. Pessimum est peccatoribus, in unum convenire cum peccant. 100. Multi cibi impediunt castitatem, et incontinentia ciborum immundum facit hominem. 101. Animantium omnium usus quidem in cibis indifferens, abstinere vero rationabilius est. 102. Non cibi per os inferuntur polluunt hominem, sed ea quae ex malis actibus proferuntur〔《马可福音》7:18–21〕……

上帝是人行善的引导者。97. 不要把任何人视为仇敌。98. 凡与你同具本性者，都当爱他；但爱上帝应当胜过爱自己的灵魂。99. 罪人最恶劣的事，就是聚在一起犯罪。100. 多食妨碍贞洁，饮食无度使人污秽。101. 以各种动物为食，本无分别；然而戒食更为合理。102. 从口进入的食物不能污秽人，惟有从恶行发出的才污秽人。……

“106. Mali nullius autor est Deus. 107. Non amplius possideas quam usus corporis poscit ……

上帝不是任何恶的创始者。107. 你所拥有的，不应超过身体所需。……

“115. Ratio quae in te est, vitae, tuâe lux est〔《马太福音》6:22〕。116. Ea pete a Deo, quae accipere ab homine non potes ...

你里面的理性，是你生命的光。116. 当向上帝祈求那些你不能从人领受的事物……

“122. Nil pretiosum ducas, quod auferre a te possit homo malus. 123. Hoc solum bonum putato, quod Deo dignum est. 124. Quod Deo dignum est, hoc et viro bono. 125. Quicquid non convenit ad beatudinem Dei. non conveniat nomini Dei. 126. Ea debes velle, quae et Deus vult. 127. Filius Dei est, qui haec sola pretiosa ducit quae et Deus. 139. Semper apud Deum mens est sapientIs. 137. Sapientis mentem Deus inhabitat ……

凡恶人能从你夺去的，都不要看为宝贵。123. 惟有配得上帝的，才当看为善。124. 配得上帝的，也配得善人。125. 凡与上帝的福乐不相称的，也不应与上帝的名相称。126. 你所愿的，应当也是上帝所愿的。127. 惟独把上帝所看重的看为宝贵的人，就是上帝的儿子。139. 智慧人的心思常与上帝同在。137. 上帝住在智慧人的心思之中。……

“181. Sapiens vir etiamsi nudus sit, sapiens apud te habeatur. 182. Neminem propterea magni aestimes, quod pecunia divitiisque abundet. 183. Difficile est divitem salvari〔《马太福音》19:3〕……

智慧人即使赤身露体，你仍当视他为智慧人。182. 不要因人金钱财富丰厚，就高看他。183. 财主得救是难的。……

“187. Age magna, non magna pollicens. 188. Non eris sapiens, si te reputaveris sapientem. 189. Non potest bene vivere qui non integre credit. 190. In tribulationibus quis sit fidelis, agnoscitur. 191. Finem vitae existima vivere secundum Deum. 192. Nihil putes malum, quod non sit turpe ... .

要行大事，不要夸下海口。188. 你若自以为有智慧，就不能成为智慧人。189. 信心不纯全的人，不能过良善的生活。190. 谁是忠信的人，在患难中便可看出。191. 当以照上帝旨意生活为人生的目的。192. 凡不是可耻的事，都不要看为恶……

“198. Malitia est aegritudo animae. 199. Animae autem mors iniustitia et impietas. 200. Tunc te putato fidelem, cum passionibus animae carueris. 201. Omnibus hominibus ita utere, quasi communis omnium post Deum curator. 202. Qui hominibus male utitur, seipso male utitur. 203. Qui nihil mali vult, fidelis est ……

恶是灵魂的疾病。199. 不义与不敬虔却是灵魂的死亡。200. 当你摆脱灵魂的情欲时，才可自认忠信。201. 对待众人，当如同自己是仅次于上帝、照管所有人的共同看顾者。202. 恶待人的，就是恶待自己。203. 不愿行任何恶事的，就是忠信的人。……

“214. Verba tua pietate semper plena sint. 215. In actibus tuis ante oculos pone Deum. 216. Nefas est Deum patrem invocare, et aliquid inhonestum agere ……

你的言语当常充满敬虔。215. 行事时，当将上帝摆在眼前。216. 一面称上帝为父，一面行不端之事，是大逆不道的。……

“261. Ebrietatem quasi insaniam fuge. 262. Homo qui a ventre vincitur, belluae similis est. 263. Ex carne nihil oritur bonum ……

躲避醉酒，当如躲避疯狂。262. 被口腹之欲制服的人，如同禽兽。263. 肉体不能生出任何善来。……

“302. Omne quod malum est, Deo inimicum est. 303. Qui sapit in te, hunc dicito esse hominem. 304. Particeps Dei est vir sapiens. 305. Ubi est quod sapit in te, ibi est et bonum tuum. 306. Bonum in carne non quaeras. 307. Quod animae non nocet, nec homini. 308. Sapientem hominem tanquam Dei ministrum honora post Deum ....

凡是恶的，都与上帝为敌。303. 你里面有智慧的那一位，才当称为人。304. 智慧人有分于上帝。305. 你里面有智慧之处，也是你的善所在之处。306. 不要在肉体中寻求善。307. 不损害灵魂的，也不损害人。308. 当把智慧人当作上帝的仆役来尊敬，其地位仅次于上帝……

“390. Quaecunque dat mundus, nemo firmiter tenet. 391. Quaecumque dat Deus nemo auferre potest. 392. Divina sapientia vera est scientia ……

世界所给的一切，无人能牢牢持有。391. 上帝所赐的一切，无人能够夺去。392. 属上帝的智慧才是真知识。……

“403. Animae ascensus ad Deum per Dei verbum est. 404. Sapiens sequitur Deum, et Deus animam sapientis. 405. Gaudet rex super his quos regit, gaudet ergo Deus super sapiente. Inseparabilis est et ab his quos regit ille, qui regit, ita ergo et Deus ab anima sapientis quam tuetur et regit. 406. Reqitur a Deo vir sapiens, et idcirco beatus est ... .

灵魂藉上帝的道升到上帝那里。404. 智慧人跟随上帝，上帝也随着智慧人的灵魂。405. 君王以自己所治理的人民为乐，因此上帝也以智慧人为乐。治理者与他所治理的人不可分离，同样，上帝与他所保护、所治理的智慧人的灵魂也不可分离。406. 智慧人受上帝治理，因此是有福的……

“424. Si non diligis Deum, non ibis ad Deum. 425. Consuesce teipsum semper respicere ad Deum. 426. Intuendo Deum videbis Deum. 427. Videns Deum facies mentem tuam qualis est Deus. 428. Excole quod intra te est, nec ei ex libidine corporis contumeliam facias. 429. Incontaminatum custodi corpus tuum, tanquam si indumentum acceperis à Deo, et sicut vestimentum corporis immaculatum servare stude. 430. Sapiens mens speculam est Dei.”

你若不爱上帝，就不能到上帝那里去。425. 当养成常常仰望上帝的习惯。426. 凝视上帝，你就必看见上帝。427. 看见上帝，你就必使自己的心思成为上帝那样。428. 当培育你里面的所有，不要因身体的情欲而辱没它。429. 当保守你的身体不受玷污，如同它是你从上帝领受的衣裳；又当竭力使它如身体的衣服一般，保持洁白无瑕。430. 智慧的心思是上帝的镜子。”

§ 172. 护教士：夸德拉图斯与阿里斯提德

关于护教文献的概况，见§ 28，第85页及下页，以及§ 37，第104页。

我们现在要论到一系列教会作家；由于他们主要著作的性质与名称，他们被称为护教士 (Apologists)。他们活跃于哈德良 (Hadrian)、安敦宁 (Antoninus) 和马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 统治时期，当时基督教既遭受异教世界的文字攻击，也遭受流血逼迫。他们驳斥犹太人和外邦人的指控与毁谤，维护福音的真理，攻击偶像崇拜的谬误与罪恶。他们的学识与修养都比使徒教父更为深厚。他们大多是哲学家和修辞学家，经过认真考察，在成年之后归信基督教，并在其中寻得心灵与理智的安宁。他们的著作洋溢着同样的英勇精神、同样的信仰热忱；正是这种精神和热忱，激励着殉道者忍受苦难与死亡。

这些护教士中最早的是撰文反对异教徒的夸德拉图斯 (Quadratus) 和阿里斯提德 (Aristides)，以及撰文反对犹太人的佩拉的阿里斯托 (Aristo of Pella)；他们都生活在哈德良统治时期（117–137年）。

夸德拉图斯 (Quadratus)（）是使徒的门徒，也是雅典 (Athens) 的主教（长老）。他的《护教书》(Apology) 已经失传。我们对他的全部了解，来自优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的一段记载：“夸德拉图斯向埃利乌斯·哈德良 (Aelius Hadrian) 呈上一篇论说，为我们所信奉的宗教辩护；因为有些心怀恶意的人企图骚扰我们的弟兄。这部著作仍保存在一些弟兄手中，我们自己也有；任何人都可以从中清楚看出此人的见识及其使徒信仰。这位作者在以下几段话中，表明了自己生活的年代何等古老：他说：‘我们救主的作为始终在你们眼前，因为那些是真实的神迹；那些得医治的人、从死里复活的人，不仅在得医治和复活时为人所见，而且一直都在。他们长久活着，不仅在我们的主仍在地上时如此，在他离开这世界以后也是如此。因此，其中有些人甚至活到了我们自己的时代。’夸德拉图斯就是这样的人。”

阿里斯提德是雅典一位雄辩的哲学家，优西比乌提到他是夸德拉图斯的同时代人。¹⁴⁷他的《护教书》(Apology) 同样早已失传，但最近从亚美尼亚文译本中重新发现了其中一个片段，由梅希塔尔修会士 (Mechitarists) 于1878年刊行。¹⁴⁸这部著作呈献给哈德良，表明保罗在雅典的传道已经扎根。它阐述基督徒的上帝观，认为上帝是无限而不可言喻的存在，创造万物，眷顾万物；我们应当事奉他、荣耀他，以他为独一的上帝。它也阐述基督观，将基督描述为“至高上帝的儿子，由圣灵显明，从天降下，为希伯来童贞女所生。他从童贞女领受肉身，在人性中显明自己是上帝的儿子。他以那带来佳音的恩慈，藉着赐生命的宣讲赢得了全世界。〔就是他，按肉体说，出于希伯来人的族类，由上帝之母、童贞女马利亚 (Mariam) 所生。〕¹⁴⁹他拣选十二使徒，以他作中保、赐光明的真理教导全世界。他被犹太人用钉子钉穿，钉在十字架上；他从死里复活，升到天上。他差遣使徒往普天下去，以充满智慧的神圣奇迹教导众人。他们的宣讲至今仍开花结果，呼召全世界归向光明。”

这份文献有一个奇特之处，就是把人类分为四类：蛮族、希腊人、犹太人和基督徒。

佩拉的阿里斯托是第二世纪上半叶的一位犹太基督徒，曾撰写一部反驳犹太教、为基督教辩护的著作，现已失传。¹⁵⁰

§ 173. 哲学家与殉道者游斯丁

殉道者游斯丁著作的版本

**《哲学家与殉道者游斯丁全集》(Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera omnia)，收入《第二世纪基督教护教士文集》(Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi*)，Jo. Car. Th. de 奥托 (Jo. Car. Th. de Otto) 编，耶拿 (Jen.)，1847年，第3版，1876–1881年。5卷，八开本。收录殉道者游斯丁的真作、存疑之作和伪作，附评注及马朗 (Maran) 的拉丁文译本。

较早的版本（多不完整）有：Robt. 斯特法努斯 (Robt. Stephanus) 编，巴黎 (Par.)，1551年；西尔堡 (Sylburg) 编，海德堡 (Heidelb.)，1593年；格拉贝 (Grabe) 编，牛津 (Oxon.)，1700年（仅含《第一护教书》〔Apol. I.〕）；Prudent. 马朗 (Prudent. Maranus) 编，巴黎，1742年（本笃会版），1747年于威尼斯再版，又收入米涅 (Migne) 的《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.) 第VI卷（巴黎，1857年），第10–800、1102–1680栏，并据奥托版增补。《护教书》(Apologies) 也曾多次单独刊行，例如 B. L. 吉尔德斯利夫 (B. L. Gildersleeve) 教授编本，纽约 (N. Y.)，1877年，附导论与注释。

关于游斯丁的抄本，见奥托的《绪论》(Proleg.)，第xx页及后，以及哈纳克 (Harnack) 的《文献》(Texte)。关于真作，我们仅有两部抄本，且都有讹误，一部藏于巴黎，另一部在切尔滕纳姆 (Cheltenham)，为F. A. 芬威克 (F. A. Fenwick) 牧师所有（见奥托，第xxiv页）。

英译本收入牛津《教父文库》(Library of the Fathers)，伦敦 (Lond.)，1861年；另有G. J. 戴维 (G. J. Davie) 的译本，收入《尼西亚前教父文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，第II卷，1867年（465页），其中包括M. 多兹 (M. Dods) 翻译的《护教书》(Apologies)、《致希腊人书》(Address to the Greeks)、《劝勉书》(Exhortation) 和《殉道记》(Martyrium)；G. 赖思 (G. Reith) 翻译的《与特里丰对话》(Dialogue with Trypho) 和《论上帝的独一统治》(On the Sole Government of God)；还包括B. P. 普拉滕 (B. P. Pratten) 翻译的雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras) 的著作。较早的译本有Wm. 里夫斯 (Wm. Reeves)，1709年；亨利·布朗 (Henry Brown)，1755年；以及J. 谢瓦利埃 (J. Chevallier)，1833年（第II版，1851年）。关于德文及其他译本，见奥托，《绪论》(Prol.)，第LX页及后。

关于殉道者游斯丁的著作

凯伊 (Kaye) 主教：《殉道者游斯丁著作与观点述略》(Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr)。剑桥 (Cambr.)，1829年，第3版，1853年。

C. A. 克雷德纳 (C. A. Credner)：《圣经书卷导论论丛》(Beiträge zur Einleitung in die bibl. Schriften)。哈雷 (Halle)，第I卷，1832年（第92–267页）；另见第II卷，1838年（论旧约引文，第17–98、104–133、157–311页）。克雷德纳以详尽的学识，讨论游斯丁与福音书和新约正典的关系，以及他对《七十士译本》的引用。亦参其《新约正典史》(Geschichte des N. T Canon)，福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 编，1860年。

C. 塞米施 (C. Semisch)：《殉道者游斯丁》(Justin der Märtyrer)。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1840及1842年，2卷。极为深入全面，反映了出版时的研究水平。赖兰 (Ryland) 英译本，爱丁堡，1844年，2卷。参塞米施：《殉道者游斯丁的使徒回忆录》(Die apostol. Denkwürdigkeiten des Just. M.)（汉堡〔Hamb.〕及哥达〔Gotha〕，1848年），以及他在赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书第1版第VII卷（1857年），第179–186页所撰的“游斯丁”条。

Fr. 伯林格 (Fr. Böhringer)：《传记体教会史》(Die Kirchengesch. in Biographien)。第I卷，苏黎世 (Zürich)，1842年，第II版，1861年，第97–270页。

Ad. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld)：《游斯丁所用福音书的批判研究》(Krit. Untersuchungen ueber die Evangelien Justin’s)。哈雷，1850年。另有《使徒行传与殉道者游斯丁》(Die Ap. Gesch. u. der M. Just.)，载其《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.)，1872年，第495–509页；以及《异端史》(Ketzergesch.)，1884年，第21页及后。

**J. C. Th. 奥托 (J. C. Th. Otto)：《圣游斯丁的特征》(Zur Characteristik des heil. Justinus)。维也纳 (Wien)，1852年。其“护教士游斯丁”(Justinus der Apologete) 一文，载《埃尔施与格鲁伯百科全书》(Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklop.*)，第二部，第30分册（1853年），第39–76页。亦参其游斯丁著作第3版中的《绪论》(Prolegomena)。他对游斯丁的总体评价与塞米施一致。

C. G. 塞伯特 (C. G. Seibert)：《游斯丁：凯撒御座前的基督教辩护者》(Justinus, der Vertheidiger des Christenthums vor dem Thron der Caesaren)。埃尔伯费尔德 (Elberf.)，1859年。

Ch. E. 弗雷佩尔 (Ch. E. Freppel)（罗马天主教主教）：《第二世纪的基督教护教士》(Les Apologistes Chrétiens du II.^e siècle)。巴黎，1860年。

L. 沙勒 (L. Schaller)：《从教义角度看殉道者游斯丁的两部护教书》(Les deux Apologies de Justin M. au point de vie dogmatique)。斯特拉斯堡 (Strasb.)，1861年。

B. 奥贝 (B. Aubé)：《论第二世纪的基督教护教学》(De l’apologetique Chrétienne au II.^e siècle)。巴黎，1861年；以及《圣游斯丁：哲学家与殉道者》(S. Justin philosophe et martyr)，1875年。

E. 德·普雷桑塞 (E. de Pressensé)：见其《最初三个世纪的历史》(Histoire des trois premiers siècles) 第三卷，或英译本（1870年）第二卷，论殉道者与护教士；以及他在利希滕贝格尔 (Lichtenberger) 百科全书第VII卷（1880年），第576–583页的文章。

Em. 鲁杰里 (Em. Ruggieri)：《圣游斯丁的生平与教义》(Vita e dottrina di S. Giustino)。罗马 (Rom.)，1862年。

**J. 唐纳森 (J. Donaldson)：《尼西亚前基督教文献史》(Hist. of Ante-Nicene Christian Literature)。伦敦，第II卷（1866年），其中第62–344页论殉道者游斯丁。

C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker)：《殉道者游斯丁的神学》(Die Theologie des Märtyrers Justinus)，载《德国神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher fur Deutsche Theologie)。哥达，1867年（第XII卷，第I期，第60–120页）。

勒南 (Renan)：《基督教会》(L’église chrétienne)（巴黎，1879年），第XIX章，第364–389页；第XXV章，第480页及后。

莫里茨·冯·恩格尔哈特 (Moritz von Engelhardt)（卒于1881年）：《殉道者游斯丁的基督教》(Das Christenthum Justins des Märtyrers)。埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1878年。（490页，无索引。）附有一篇颇具启发性的批判性评论，评述关于爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 及其历史地位的各种论述（第1–70页）。亦见他在赫尔佐格百科全书第2版 (Herzog²) 第VII卷所撰的“游斯丁”(Justin) 条。

G. F. 珀维斯 (G. F. Purves)：《殉道者游斯丁对早期基督教的见证》(The Testimony of Justin M. to Early Christianity)。纽约，1888年。

阿道夫·施特黑林 (Adolf Stähelin)：《殉道者游斯丁及其最新的评论者》(Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuster Beurtheiler)。莱比锡，1880年（67页）。对恩格尔哈特专著的一篇审慎评论。

亨利·斯科特·霍兰 (Henry Scott Holland)：“殉道者游斯丁”(Justinus Martyr) 条，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，第III卷（1880年），第560–587页。

Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《游斯丁的著作》(Die Werke des Justin)，载《文献与研究》(Texte und Untersuchungen) 等。莱比锡，1882年，第I卷，第130–195页。

克雷德纳 (Credner)、塞米施 (Semisch)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、诺顿 (Norton)、桑迪 (Sanday)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、阿博特 (Abbot) 讨论过游斯丁与福音书的关系；奥弗贝克 (Overbeck，1872年) 和希尔根费尔德讨论过他与《使徒行传》的关系；H. D. 特延克·维林克 (H. D. Tjeenk Willink，1868年)、Alb. 托马 (Alb. Thoma，1875年) 和冯·恩格尔哈特 (v. Engelhardt，1878年) 讨论过他与保罗书信的关系。

第二世纪希腊护教士中最杰出的是弗拉维乌斯·尤斯提努斯 (Flavius Justinus)，号称“哲学家与殉道者”。¹⁵¹ 他是护教士的典范，在基督教遭受最猛烈攻击的时代，将毕生奉献于捍卫基督教，并以自己的鲜血印证了他的见证。他也是第一位基督教哲学家，或第一位哲学神学家。爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、希波吕托 (Hippolytus)、优西比乌 (Eusebius)、伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)、哲罗姆和佛提乌 (Photius) 都熟知他的著作，其中最重要的几部保存至今。

I. 生平。游斯丁生于第一世纪末或第二世纪初，出生地是希腊—罗马殖民城弗拉维亚·尼亚波利 (Flavia Neapolis)；此城以皇帝弗拉维乌斯·韦斯帕芗 (Flavius Vespasian) 命名，建在撒马利亚示剑 (Sychem) 的废墟附近（今纳布卢斯，Nablous）。他自称撒马利亚人，但出身于异教家庭，未受割礼，归信以前对摩西和先知一无所知。他或许属于韦斯帕芗在耶路撒冷被毁后安置在撒马利亚的罗马移民。他祖父的名字巴基乌斯 (Bacchius) 是希腊名字，父亲的名字普里斯库斯 (Priscus) 及他自己的名字则是拉丁名字。他所受的是希腊式教育。从他曾从师数人、又多次游历来看，他必定略有资财，尽管他无疑生活十分简朴，也可能得到过弟兄们的资助。

他在成年初期归信。他亲自向我们讲述了这段饶有趣味的经历。¹⁵² 他渴慕真理，视之为最宝贵的财富，于是遍访各哲学体系，叩遍古代智慧的每一扇门，唯独避开了他所鄙弃的伊壁鸠鲁派 (Epicurean)。他先去求教于一位斯多亚派 (Stoic) 哲学家，却发现此人近乎不可知论者，认为认识上帝既不可能，或也无此必要；随后又投到一位逍遥学派 (Peripatetic) 哲学家门下，但此人关心优厚的学费，胜过传授学问；接着，他去拜访一位著名的毕达哥拉斯派 (Pythagorean) 哲学家，此人似乎颇有学识，却要求他先具备过多的音乐、天文和几何知识，然后才肯引导他领会最高的真理。最后，他在一位新近来到本城的杰出教师指导下，满怀热忱地投入柏拉图主义 (Platonism) 的怀抱。¹⁵³ 对非物质事物的领悟，以及对真、善、美之永恒理念的默观，使他深深折服。他以为自己已经接近这一哲学所应许的目标——得见上帝；这时，在一次离海边不远的独自散步中，一位面容和善、温厚庄重、令人敬重的基督徒老人同他交谈，改变了他一生的方向。这位不知姓名的朋友动摇了他对一切人类智慧的信心，指引他去读希伯来先知的著作；这些先知比哲学家更早，他们看见并宣讲真理，不是以推论者的身份，而是以见证人的身份。不仅如此，他们还预言了基督的降临，而这些预言已在基督的生平与工作中应验。老人离去了，游斯丁再也没有见过他，但他采纳了老人的劝告，不久便在福音书所阐明并证实的旧约先知书中，寻得了那建立在启示之坚固根基上、真实而无谬的哲学。这样，这位热忱的柏拉图主义者成了一位信主的基督徒。

对塔提安 (Tatian)、安提阿的提阿非罗 (Theophilus) 和希拉里 (Hilary) 来说，犹太先知同样也是通向基督教信仰的桥梁。不过，我们不可认为，仅仅是旧约促成了游斯丁的归信；因为在《第二护教辞》(Second Apology) 中，游斯丁明确提到，基督教在实际生活中所产生的作用，也是促使他归信的一个因素。他还信奉柏拉图主义、听人诬蔑基督徒时，就已因他们面对死亡时无畏的勇气与坚定不移而深感钦佩。¹⁵⁴

归信以后，游斯丁寻求与基督徒交往，接受他们对福音历史与教义的教导。此后，他全心致力于传播和捍卫基督教。他是一位巡回布道者，或从事教导的传教士，没有固定居所，也没有在教会中担任正式职分。¹⁵⁵ 没有任何他曾受按立的迹象；就我们所知，他是一位受圣灵差遣的平信徒传道者；然而，他为教会的益处所成就的，远超过当时任何一位已知的主教或长老。他说：“凡能传讲真理而不传讲的，都要招致上帝的审判。”如同保罗一样，他自觉欠了所有人的债，无论犹太人还是外邦人，要向他们指明救恩之路。他也像阿里斯提德 (Aristides)、雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras)、德尔图良、赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas)、行神迹者贵格利 (Gregory Thaumaturgus) 一样，仍穿着哲学家的外袍，¹⁵⁶ 以便更容易与人谈论思想中最高深的题目；据他自己所述，当他清晨出现在公共步道上时，许多人上前向他招呼：“欢迎，哲学家！”¹⁵⁷ 他曾在罗马住过一段时间，在那里遇见马吉安 (Marcion)，并与之争辩。他在以弗所努力引导犹太人特里丰 (Trypho) 及其朋友归信基督教。

他最后的工作是在第二次到罗马期间进行的。在那里，他曾揭露犬儒派 (Cynic) 哲学家克雷斯肯斯 (Crescens) 对基督教的无知；约在166年，在此人的煽动下，游斯丁与另外六名基督徒遭受鞭打，继而被斩首。面对死亡，他仍像生前一样无畏而喜乐，在罗马城长官鲁斯提库斯 (Rusticus) 的法庭上为真理作见证，拒绝献祭，并以自己的榜样证明了他一向引以为荣、视为信主弟兄之特征的坚定不移。有人请他解释基督的奥秘，他回答说：“我太渺小，不能说出什么配得上他伟大的话。”他最后的话是：“我们别无所愿，只愿为我们的主耶稣基督受苦；因为这使我们得着救恩，并在他可畏的审判台前满怀喜乐，全世界的人都必须显现在那里。”

在教父中，游斯丁是第一位堪称博学的神学家和基督教思想家的人。他归信以前，已具备相当的古典与哲学修养，此后便将这些学识用于捍卫信仰。他不是一位天才，也不以学问精确见长，却颇有才干，博览群书，记忆力惊人。他有一些独创而深刻的思想，例如种子性逻各斯 (spermatic Logos) 的观念；而在评价高尚的异教徒和犹太基督徒中较温和的一派时，他的态度尤为宽厚。他所处的时代，按照罗马针对秘密社团和被禁宗教的法律，承认基督就是犯罪。他生时具有认信者的勇气，死时具有殉道者的勇气。对于他无畏地献身于真理事业、维护受逼迫弟兄的精神，人不能不钦佩。他即使算不上一位伟人，也是一位极其良善而有益于世的人——这比作伟人更好——配在“高贵的殉道者大军”中占有受尊崇的地位。¹⁵⁸

著作。游斯丁除了口头作见证之外，还在护教与论战领域从事了大量著述。他笔耕不辍，反对基督教真理的一切仇敌，无论是犹太人、外邦人，还是异端。

他最主要的著作属于护教性质，且仍存于世，即针对异教徒的两篇《护教辞》(Apologies)，以及《与犹太人特里丰对话》(Dialogue with the Jew Trypho)。《第一护教辞》(First Apology)，又称较长的《护教辞》（68章），是呈给皇帝安东尼努斯·庇护 (Antoninus Pius，137–161年) 及其养子的，可能写于公元147年左右，或更早；《第二护教辞》(Second Apology)，又称较短的《护教辞》（25章），是前者的补篇，也可能是其结尾，同样属于这位皇帝的统治时期（而非马可·奥勒留的统治时期）。¹⁵⁹ 两篇都是为基督徒及其宗教辩护，反对异教徒的诬蔑和逼迫。他别无所求，只要求公正对待他的弟兄；他们仅仅因为是基督徒、被疑为罪犯，便未经审讯而被定罪。他越过下级法庭和暴民的强暴，向最高法庭申诉，深信他所呈请的这些明智而富于哲思的统治者，在公正听审之后，必会判他们无罪。他把逼迫归因于邪灵的煽动；这些邪灵正为自己的权势而战栗，且不久便要被推翻。

《对话》(Dialogue) 共142章，篇幅比两篇《护教辞》的总和还多一倍有余；它根据摩西和先知，为基督教辩护，回应犹太人的反对。此书写于前述著作之后（第120章提及那些著作），但也在安东尼努斯·庇护统治期间，即公元161年以前，很可能在公元148年左右。¹⁶⁰ 在《护教辞》中，他像一位哲学家向哲学家讲话；在《对话》中，他则以旧约信徒的身份，与一位亚伯拉罕的子孙交谈。这场辩论持续了两天，地点在体育馆，时间就在游斯丁一次启航之前，主要围绕两个问题展开：基督徒既违犯上帝的律法，怎能自称事奉上帝；他们又怎能相信一位受苦而死的、具有人性的救主。优西比乌称特里丰为“当代希伯来人中最杰出的人”；他不是狂热的法利赛人，而是一位宽容有礼的犹太人，最后含蓄地承认自己颇受教益，请游斯丁再来，并记念他这位朋友。此书是早期先知经文释义的宝库。

论战著作《驳一切异端》(Against all Heresies) 和《驳马吉安》(Against Marcion) 均已散佚。前者在《第一护教辞》中曾被提及；后者则有一些片段保存在爱任纽的著作中，或许它只是前者的一部分。¹⁶¹ 优西比乌还提到游斯丁的一部《诗篇集》(Psalter) 和一部《论灵魂》(On the Soul)，现已全然无存。

署名游斯丁、真伪存疑而可能出自其手的著作：一篇《致希腊人》(To the Greeks) 演说；¹⁶² 一篇《论上帝的独一性》(On the Unity of God)；以及另一篇《论复活》(On the Resurrection)。
托名于他的伪作：《致丢格那妥书》(Epistle to Diognetus)，可能与他生活于同一时代，但出自一位文才更高的作者之手；¹⁶³《劝勉希腊人》(Exhortation to the Greeks)；¹⁶⁴《真信仰陈述》(Deposition of the True Faith)；《致泽纳斯和塞雷努斯书》(To Zenas and Serenus)；《驳亚里士多德的若干命题》(Refutation of some Theses of Aristotle)；《向正统信徒提出的问题》(Questions to the Orthodox)；《基督徒向异教徒提出的问题》(Questions of the Christians to the Heathens)；以及《异教徒向基督徒提出的问题》(Questions of the Heathens to the Christians)。其中有些属于第三世纪或更晚的世纪。¹⁶⁵

游斯丁 (Justin) 的真作具有非同寻常的重要性与趣味。它们将那个时代生动地呈现在我们眼前：教会仍是一个受人鄙视、遭受逼迫的小宗派，却信心勇毅，临死喜乐。这些著作处处见证他的诚实与热忱、他对基督教的热爱，以及他捍卫基督教、抵御外来攻击和内部曲解时的无所畏惧。他为我们留下了关于公共崇拜和圣礼举行方式的最早可靠记述。他的推理往往巧妙而有说服力，但有时散漫而流于幻想，不过并不比当时其他作者更甚。他的文风流畅生动，却冗长而疏于锤炼。他写作时，怀着强烈的责任感，凭着新鲜的印象，并不严守章法，也不追求修辞的精美与艺术效果。他执笔而思，不瞻前顾后，倚重记忆多于书籍。只是偶尔，例如在《对话》(Dialogue) 的开篇，才显出他昔日的老师柏拉图 (Plato) 那种文学艺术的一点风采。¹⁶⁶ 然而，文字虽欠精雕细琢，却以清新和真实弥补了这一不足。倘若罗马皇帝们读过呈献给他们的这些书，至少一定会对作者的诚实和基督徒的无辜留下深刻印象。¹⁶⁷

神学。至于游斯丁宗教知识的来源，一部分出于圣经，一部分出于教会活的传统。他最常引用的是旧约先知书（采用《七十士译本》）以及基督的“回忆录”，或“使徒们所作的回忆录”；他如此称呼正典福音书，却不提作者的姓名。他通常凭记忆引用，因此常不准确。¹⁶⁸ 他说，这些书与旧约先知书一同在各教会公开诵读。他所引的只是主的言语和作为。他使用《马太福音》和《路加福音》最多，但引用得十分自由；他的逻各斯 (Logos) 教义是其神学的核心，而这教义的灵感则得自《约翰福音》的序言（并借助于他从未提名的斐洛 (Philo)）。¹⁶⁹ 他明确提到约翰的《启示录》。他不知道有一套固定的新约正典，而且像黑马 (Hermas) 和帕皮亚 (Papias) 一样，从未提及保罗；然而，他对保罗书信中若干经文（《罗马书》《哥林多前书》《以弗所书》《歌罗西书》等）的暗引，几乎不容误认；他与马吉安 (Marcion) 的论战，也必然意味着他充分了解这位异端者收入其正典的十封书信。若要从这种沉默推导出任何教义上的结论，就更无根据了，因为在游斯丁的真作中，除一次提到约翰、两次提到西门彼得，以及“基督称为半尼其的西庇太的儿子们”以外，没有一个使徒或福音书作者被明确提名；他总是直接提到基督，或笼统地提到先知和使徒。¹⁷⁰ 在他看来，大祭司衣袍边上的十二个铃铛预表使徒，他们的声音传遍全世界。但这并不排除保罗的使徒尊位，正如新耶路撒冷根基石上的十二使徒之名并不排除他一样（启21:14）。他们代表以色列的十二支派，保罗则代表外邦人中独立的使徒职分。

游斯丁对旧约的解释，自始至终都是护教式、预表式和寓意式的。他处处发现指向基督的经文，将旧约变成一本基督教神学教科书。他不加区别地把整个新约读入旧约之中，因而抹去了两者的差别。他不懂希伯来文，¹⁷¹ 随意沿用了《七十士译本》的讹误和增文。他对文法或历史释经毫无概念。他还曾两三次把《西比拉神谕》(Sibylline Oracles) 和《许斯塔斯佩斯》(Hystaspes) 当作真正的预言加以引用，并援引伪经《彼拉多行传》(Acts of Pilate) 作为权威。然而，我们应当记得，他的轻信、不准确和缺乏批判，并不比他的同时代人及大多数教父更甚。

游斯丁是从使徒教父过渡到严格意义上的教会教父的人物。评判他，不应采用后世正统信仰的标准，无论是希腊教会、罗马教会，还是福音派的标准；也不应以使徒时期犹太基督教与外邦基督教的冲突，或以当时已经脱离大公基督教主流的伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 和诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 来衡量他。指控他持伊便尼主义，是一个重大错误。他是归信的外邦人，将教会与会堂明确区分为两个彼此对立的组织。他属于受希腊哲学影响而有所变化的正统大公信仰。在他看来，基督徒才是上帝真正的子民，是一切应许的承受者。他将企图把摩西律法的轭强加于人的犹太基督徒（伊便尼派），与仅自己遵守律法、容许外邦人自由的犹太基督徒（拿撒勒派 (Nazarenes)）区别开来；他不承认前者是基督徒，却以宽厚之心对待后者，如同保罗在《罗马书》第14和15章所做的一样。他所提到的正统基督徒之间唯一的分歧，是对千禧年的信仰；他与巴拿巴、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 一样持守这一信仰，但许多人却拒绝接受。然而，他与所有尼西亚会议以前的作者一样，并不清楚洞悉旧约与新约、律法与福音之间的区别，对于罪和救赎恩典的深度，以及信心使人称义的能力，也没有恰当的认识。他的神学与其说是福音的、自由的，不如说是律法主义的、禁欲主义的。他保留了一些从早年学习中得来的异教观念，虽然他真诚地相信这些观念与启示完全和谐。

对游斯丁而言，基督教在理论上是真正的哲学，¹⁷² 在实践上则是使人圣洁地生活和离世的新律法。¹⁷³ 前者主要是《护教辞》(Apologies) 的立场，后者则是《对话》(Dialogue) 的立场。

他不是一位独创的哲学家，而是一位从事哲学思考的折衷主义者，尤其喜爱柏拉图；他引用柏拉图的次数，多于任何其他古典作家。从宽泛的意义上说，可以称他为基督教的柏拉图主义者。他也受到斯多葛主义 (Stoicism) 的影响。他认为，希腊哲学家的光明是从摩西和先知那里借来的。然而，归根结底，他与柏拉图的关系只是外在的，建立在想象出来的相似点之上。他借着先知的经书，尤其借着约翰关于逻各斯和道成肉身的教义，来光照并转化自己对柏拉图思想的记忆。这是他哲学神学的中心观念。基督教是最高的理性。逻各斯是先存的、绝对的、有位格的理性，而基督就是这理性的体现，是道成肉身的逻各斯。凡合乎理性的，都是基督教的；凡属基督教的，都是合乎理性的。¹⁷⁴ 逻各斯将理性和自由赋予所有人，这些并未因堕落而丧失。他在道成肉身以前撒播真理的种子（），不但撒在犹太人中，也撒在希腊人和蛮族中，尤其撒在哲学家和诗人中，他们就是异教徒的先知。凡顺从这种预备性的光照，合乎理性（）而有德行地生活的人，虽没有基督徒之名，却有基督徒之实；反之，那些不合乎理性（）而生活的人，则没有基督，是基督的仇敌。¹⁷⁵ 苏格拉底 (Socrates) 与亚伯拉罕一样，也是基督徒，虽然他自己并不知道。没有一位教父或经院学者曾将救恩之门开得如此宽广。在所有宽容的教会人士中，他是最宽容的一位。

然而，这种对异教极其宽容的看法，并未使他看不见普遍的败坏。外邦人大多是拜偶像者，而偶像崇拜是在魔鬼和群魔的控制之下。犹太人比异教徒更坏，因为他们违背更充分的知识而犯罪。最坏的则是异端者，因为他们败坏基督教的真理。他也并未忽视苏格拉底与基督之间，以及最优秀的异教徒与最卑微的基督徒之间的差别。他说：“没有人信靠苏格拉底，以至为他的教义而死；但苏格拉底曾部分认识的基督，不但为哲学家和学者所信靠，也为工匠和全然没有学问的人所信靠。”

游斯丁的基督教信仰，就是信创造主上帝，信他的儿子、救赎主耶稣基督，并信赐下预言的圣灵。借先知和使徒启示的其他一切教义，都由此自然引出。在神以下有善恶两类天使；前者是上帝的使者，后者是撒但的仆役，他们在异教神话中歪曲模仿圣经教义，编造诽谤，煽动对基督徒的逼迫，但在基督第二次降临时必被彻底倾覆。人的灵魂是受造之物，因此本可朽坏，却从上帝领受不朽：永远的福乐是虔敬的赏赐，永火是邪恶的刑罚。人有理性和自由意志，因此须为自己的一切行为负责；他出于自己的行动而犯罪，故当受罚。基督来，是要打破罪的权势，使人得蒙赦免和重生，进入崭新而圣洁的生命。

这里便涉及这种基督教哲学的实践或伦理层面。它是出于上帝、又引人归向上帝的智慧。它是以赛亚和耶利米所应许、由基督引入的新律法和新约。旧律法只为犹太人而设，新律法却为全世界而设；旧律法是暂时的，已经废去，新律法却是永恒的；旧律法命令人肉身受割礼，新律法则要求内心受割礼；旧律法吩咐人遵守一日，新律法则使所有日子成圣；旧律法关乎外在的行为，新律法则关乎属灵的悔改和信心，并要求人将自己全然奉献给上帝。

从殉道者游斯丁的时代起，柏拉图哲学便持续对基督教神学发挥直接和间接的影响，虽然不再像在他身上那样毫无拘束、天真直率。¹⁷⁶ 我们尤其可以在亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和俄利根 (Origen) 身上，甚至在圣奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 身上，追溯到这种影响；奥古斯丁承认，它曾在自己心中燃起不可思议的火焰。在经院时期，它让位于亚里士多德 (Aristotle) 哲学，后者更适于作清晰而合乎逻辑的陈述。但柏拉图主义仍借着伪狄奥尼修斯文献 (pseudo-Dionysian writings)，对马克西穆 (Maximus)、大马士革的约翰 (John of Damascus)、托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas) 及其他经院学者保持影响。这些文献于532年首次出现在君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)，很可能写于第五世纪。它们从天上与地上双重等级秩序的角度，提出了一整套宇宙体系，每一重等级秩序都由三个三联组构成。

柏拉图哲学与基督教有许多相似之处。它是属灵的、唯心的，主张精神高于物质，永恒的理念高于一切暂时的现象，并主张灵魂的先存与不朽；它是有神论的，将至高的上帝置于一切次等神祇之上，以他为万物的开始、中间和终结；它是伦理的，着眼于今生与来世的赏罚；它是宗教的，将伦理学、政治学和自然哲学建立在宇宙的立法者与统治者的权威之上；因此，它将人引到上帝在基督里启示的门槛，虽然它既不知道这蒙福的名，也不知道他的救恩恩典，并且以严重的谬误遮蔽了自己所瞥见的真理。总的说来，柏拉图主义的影响，尤其是普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 伦理论文所体现的影响，向来直到今日都是提升人的、激励人的、健全的，召唤人的心思离开尘世的虚空，转而默观永恒的真、善、美。从哲学家游斯丁到历史家尼安德 (Neander)，对于教会中不少最高尚的教师而言，柏拉图是一位引他们归向基督的启蒙师傅。

附注

马朗 (Maran)，以及近来的默勒 (Möhler) 和弗雷佩尔 (Freppel)，都曾以渊博的学识论述游斯丁的神学与哲学；他们站在罗马天主教的立场上，力证他的信仰完全正统。在新教徒中，最先怀疑其正统性的是《马格德堡世纪史》(Magdeburg Centuries) 的作者们，他们是从路德宗的立场来评判他的。

近代新教史家主要从犹太基督教与外邦基督教之间的冲突来考察他。克雷德纳 (Credner) 首先通过一项详尽的研究（1832年），试图证明游斯丁是一位伊便尼派 (Ebionitic) 类型的犹太基督徒，只不过在他那低浅的信条上，附加了柏拉图式的逻各斯教义作为附录。随后，图宾根 (Tübingen) 批判学派的施韦格勒 (Schwegler，1846年)、策勒 (Zeller)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)，以及鲍尔 (Baur) 本人（1853年），都沿袭了这一观点。然而，鲍尔缓和了克雷德纳的看法，倒是把游斯丁置于犹太基督教与外邦基督教之间，称他实质上是保罗派，只是不肯承认这个名号（“er ist der Sache nach Pauliner, aber dem Namen nach will er es nicht sein”）。这种摇摆不定的判断，表明图宾根学派把大公基督教解释为伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 与保罗主义 (Paulinism) 汇流、妥协的结果，是不能令人满意的。

里奇尔 (Ritschl) 在其《古代大公教会的起源》(Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche，第二版，1857年) 中摆脱了这一模式，把古代大公教会看作外邦基督教的发展，并把游斯丁视为“正在成为大公教会的外邦基督教”（“katholisch werde de Heidenchristenthum”）的典型：他受到保罗思想的影响，却不能领会其深度与丰满，因而把自由的立场降低为一种新形式的律法主义。里奇尔称之为“衰落的或削弱了的保罗主义”（“herabgekommemer 或 abgeschwächter Paulinismus”）。恩格尔哈特 (Engelhardt) 更进一步，认为保罗主义的这种退化，是受希腊异教以及柏拉图派、斯多葛派思维方式影响的结果。他说（第485页）：“游斯丁既是基督徒，又是异教徒。我们必须承认他的基督教信仰和他的异教成分，才能理解他。”哈纳克 (Harnack) 在1878年对恩格尔哈特著作的一篇书评中赞同他的意见，并且更加强调其中的异教成分。对此，施特黑林 (Stähelin，1880年) 提出了正当的抗议，为游斯丁真正的基督徒品格辩护。

在近来的法国作家中，奥贝 (Aubé) 肤浅地把游斯丁的神学说成不过是通俗化的异教哲学。勒南 (Renan，第389页) 称他的哲学为“一种建立在神秘理性主义之上的折衷主义”（“une sorte d’eclectisme fondé sur un rationalisme mystic”）。弗雷佩尔则回到马朗的处理方式，甚至试图把这位第二世纪的哲学家和殉道者，塑造成一位十九世纪拥护梵蒂冈的罗马天主教徒。

关于他的品格与功绩，最好的评价见尼安德 (Neander)、塞米施 (Semisch)、奥托 (Otto)、冯·恩格尔哈特 (von Engelhardt)、施特黑林、唐纳森 (Donaldson，II. 第147页及下页)，以及霍兰德 (Holland，载于史密斯与韦斯的著作)。

§ 174. 其他希腊护教士：他提安

关于后期希腊护教士的文献：

奥托 (Otto)：《基督教护教士文集》(Corpus Apologetarum Christ.)。第VI卷（1861年）：《亚述的他提安著作集》(Tatiani Assyrii Opera)；第VII卷：雅典那哥拉 (Athenagorus)；第VIII卷：提阿非罗 (Theophilus)；第IX卷：赫尔米亚斯 (Hermias)、夸德拉图斯 (Quadratus)、阿里斯提德 (Aristides)、阿里斯托 (Aristo)、米尔提亚德 (Miltiades)、米利托 (Melito)、阿波利拿里 (Apollinaris) 的《残篇》(Reliquiae)。较早的版本由马拉努斯 (Maranus) 于1742年编订，米涅 (Migne) 于1857年重印，收入其《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.) 第VI卷。O. v. 格布哈特 (O. v. Gebhardt) 与 E. 施瓦茨 (E. Schwartz) 编订的新版本，自1888年起在莱比锡 (Leipz.) 出版。

唐纳森的《基督教文学与教义批判史》等 (Critical History of Christ. Lit. and Doctr., etc.) 第三卷（伦敦，1866年），专门论述这些护教士。另参凯姆 (Keim) 的《罗马与基督教》(Rom und das Christenthum，1881年)，第439–495页；关于抄本与早期传承，参哈纳克的《文献》等 (Texte, etc.)，第I卷第1、2分册（1882年），以及施瓦茨所编的版本（1888年）。

关于他提安，见§ 131，第493–496页。

亚述的他提安 (Tatian of Assyria，110–172年) 是殉道者游斯丁的学生，他称老师为一位极可敬佩的人（），并且像老师一样，是一位周游各地的基督教哲学家；但与老师不同的是，他后来似乎游移到了异端诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 的边缘，或至少走向了一种极端的禁欲主义。有人指控他谴责婚姻，视之为败坏，并否认亚当得救，因为保罗说：“我们在亚当里都死了。”他是一个独立、刚健、认真的人，却又躁动不安、严厉苛刻，且好讥刺。¹⁷⁷ 在这两个方面，他都与德尔图良 (Tertullian) 有几分相似。在归信以前，他曾研究神话、历史、诗歌与年代学，出入剧场和竞技赛会，后来厌弃世界，并由希伯来圣经引导而归入基督教信仰。¹⁷⁸

他留给我们一部护教著作《致希腊人》(To the Greeks)。¹⁷⁹ 此书写于马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 在位期间，地点可能在罗马，其中并无异端的痕迹。他为基督教辩护，称之为“蛮族的哲学”，并凭切实的知识，以极其生动而敏锐的笔触，揭露希腊神话中的矛盾、荒谬和不道德之处，但措辞也充满激烈的轻蔑与刻薄。他证明摩西和先知们比希腊哲学家更古老、更有智慧，并提供了许多有关犹太人古老历史的资料。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 称此书为“他著作中最好、最有用的一部”，并在其《福音的预备》(Praeparatio Evangelica) 中摘录了许多段落。

以下选段表明了他的讥讽之力，以及他对希腊神话与哲学的彻底反对：

第21章——基督徒与希腊人关于上帝的教义之比较。

希腊人哪，我们宣告上帝以人的形体降生，并不是行愚妄的事，也不是讲虚妄的故事。（ἐν^* ）我请你们这些责备我们的人，把你们的神话与我们的记述比较一下。据他们说，雅典娜 (Athene) 为了赫克托耳 (Hector)，化作得伊福玻斯 (Deiphobus) 的形状；不剪发的福玻斯 (Phoebus) 为了阿德墨托斯 (Admetus)，牧放着步履拖沓的牛群；宙斯 (Zeus) 的妻子则化作一个老妇人，来到塞墨勒 (Semélé) 面前。然而，你们既然郑重其事地看待这些故事，又怎能嘲笑我们呢？你们的阿斯克勒庇俄斯 (Asclepios) 死了；那在忒斯庇埃 (Thespiae) 一夜奸污五十个处女的人，也因投身于吞噬一切的烈焰而丧命。普罗米修斯 (Prometheus) 被锁在高加索 (Caucasus)，因施惠于人而受罚。照你们所说，宙斯心怀嫉妒，把梦隐瞒，不向人透露，想要毁灭他们。因此，请看看你们自己的记载，赐给我们一点赞许吧，哪怕只把我们看作在讲述与你们相似的传说也好。然而，我们并不从事愚妄之事，你们的传说才尽是虚妄的故事。你们若谈论诸神的起源，也就宣告了他们是会死的。为什么赫拉 (Hera) 现在再也不怀孕了呢？她衰老了吗？还是没有人给你们传递消息呢？希腊人哪，现在请相信我，不要把你们的神话和诸神都化解成寓意。你们若试图这样做，你们所信奉的神性就被你们自己推翻了；因为，若你们的鬼神果真如传说中那样，他们的品格便一无可取；若把他们看作自然力的象征，他们就不是其名称所指的那些神了。但我不能被说服去敬拜自然元素，也不能着手劝说我的邻舍如此行。兰普萨库斯的墨特罗多洛斯 (Metrodorus of Lampsacus) 在论荷马 (Homer) 的著作中，把一切都化作寓意，其论证实在愚妄。他说，赫拉、雅典娜和宙斯，都不是那些向他们奉献圣地与树林的人所想象的那样，而是自然的各个部分和元素的某些组合。赫克托耳、阿喀琉斯 (Achilles)、阿伽门农 (Agamemnon)，以及一切希腊人，还有蛮族人连同海伦 (Helen) 和帕里斯 (Paris)，既然都属于同一类，你们自然会说，引入他们不过是为了诗篇的情节安排，这些人物没有一个真正存在过。

但我们提出这些，不过是为了论证；因为，我们关于上帝的观念，甚至不能容许拿来与那些在物质和泥淖中打滚者的观念相比。”

第25章——哲学家的夸口与争吵。

你们的哲学家成就过什么伟大而奇妙的事呢？他们袒露一边肩膀，任头发生长，蓄着胡须，指甲像野兽的爪子。他们虽说自己一无所需，却像普罗透斯 (Proteus)［即犬儒派的普罗透斯·佩雷格里努斯 (Proteus Peregrinus)，我们从琉善 (Lucian) 的记述中得知此人］一样，需要皮匠来制作他们的行囊，需要织工来制作他们的外衣，需要樵夫来制作他们的手杖；他们还需要富人［邀请他们赴宴］，也需要厨师来满足他们的贪食。你这与狗争胜的人［犬儒派哲学家］哪，你不认识上帝，便转而模仿无理性的动物。你装出一副权威的样子，在公众面前呼喊，自任为自己的复仇者；若得不到什么，就恣意辱骂，因为哲学在你手中成了谋财之术。你遵从柏拉图 (Plato) 的教义，伊壁鸠鲁 (Epicurus) 的门徒就高声反对你。你又想作亚里士多德 (Aristotle) 的门徒，德谟克利特 (Democritus) 的追随者便来辱骂你。毕达哥拉斯 (Pythagoras) 说自己曾是欧福耳玻斯 (Euphorbus)，他又是斐瑞居德斯 (Pherecydes) 教义的继承者，亚里士多德却抨击灵魂不朽之说。你们从前人那里接受彼此冲突的教义，你们这些不和谐的人，竟来攻击和谐的人。你们中有人断言‘上帝是有形体的’，我却断言他没有形体；有人说‘世界是不可毁灭的’，我却断言它将被毁灭；有人说‘大火焚世将在不同时期发生’，我却说这事只发生一次，便永远完成；有人说‘米诺斯 (Minos) 和拉达曼提斯 (Rhadamanthus) 是审判官’，我却说上帝自己才是审判者；有人说‘惟有灵魂被赋予了不朽’，我却说肉身也被赋予了不朽。希腊人哪，我们给你们造成了什么伤害呢？你们为什么仇恨那些遵从上帝之道的人，仿佛他们是人类中最卑劣的呢？吃人肉的并不是我们——你们中那些如此指控的人，是受人收买作假见证的；倒是在你们那里，珀罗普斯 (Pelops) 虽为波塞冬 (Poseidon) 所爱，却被做成了诸神的晚餐；克洛诺斯 (Kronos) 吞食自己的儿女，宙斯吞下墨提斯 (Metis)。”

他提安的《四福音合参》(Diatessaron)，即四部福音书的合编，对于正典史和释经史极为重要；此书一度广泛流传，后来散佚，如今已在相当程度上得到恢复。¹⁸⁰ 狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 曾在自己的教区中发现二百多部此书的抄本。叙利亚的以法莲 (Ephraem the Syrian) 曾为它作注释，其亚美尼亚文译本由威尼斯的梅希塔尔会士 (Mechitarists) 保存，奥歇尔 (Aucher) 于1841年将其译成拉丁文，默辛格 (Mösinger) 于1876年附上博学的导论予以出版。察恩 (Zahn) 根据这部注释恢复了原文（1881年）。此后，《四福音合参》本身的一部阿拉伯文译本被发现，并由恰斯卡 (Ciasca) 出版（1888年）。《四福音合参》以《约翰福音》的序言开篇（In principio erat Verbum，即“太初有道”，等等），遵循约翰所记节期的次序，以基督公开传道两年为前提，把四位福音书作者所记的基督生平连缀成一篇完整的叙事。书中并无异端倾向，惟一可能的例外，是省略了《马太福音》和《路加福音》中基督按人性而论的家谱，这或许出于幻影说 (docetic) 精神的影响。这部《四福音合参》确凿地证明，在第二世纪中叶，存在着而且教会所使用的，是四部福音书，不多也不少。

§ 175. 雅典那哥拉

奥托 (Otto)，第VII卷；米涅 (Migne)，VI. 890–1023。美国版由 W. B. 欧文 (W. B. Owen) 编订，纽约 (N. Y.)，1875年。

克拉里斯 (Clarisse)：《论雅典那哥拉的生平、著作与教义》(De Athenagorae vita, scriptis doctrina，莱顿 [Lugd. Bat.]，1819年)；唐纳森 (Donaldson)，III. 107–178；哈纳克 (Harnack)，《文献》(Texte)，I. 第176页及下页，以及他在赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 第二版中所撰的“雅典那哥拉”条（“Athen.”），I. 748–750；斯宾塞·曼塞尔 (Spencer Mansel)，载于史密斯与韦斯的著作，1. 204–207；勒南 (Renan)，《马可·奥勒留》(Marc-Auréle)，382–386。

雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras) 是马可·奥勒留在位期间（公元161–180年）一位“雅典的基督教哲学家”，除此以外，他的事迹完全不为人知，甚至优西比乌、哲罗姆 (Jerome) 和佛提乌 (Photius) 都未曾提到他。¹⁸¹ 他的哲学属于柏拉图派，却受当时盛行的折衷主义影响而有所修正。作为护教士，他的独创性不及游斯丁和他提安，文体却更为优雅，更具古典风范。

他向皇帝马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 和康茂德 (Commodus) 呈上了一篇《护教辞》，又称《为基督徒代求书》(Apology 或 Intercession in behalf of the Christians)。¹⁸² 他提醒统治者，所有臣民都获准自由遵循自己的习俗，唯独基督徒例外；他们遭受侵扰、掠夺和杀害，所凭的借口，无非是他们承认自己的主和夫子的名。我们若被查出有罪，并不反对受罚，但我们要求公正的审判。一个名称本身无所谓善恶，它的善恶取决于承受这名称之人的品格与行为。我们被控犯有三种罪：无神论、提厄斯忒斯式的宴饮 (Thyestean banquets，即食人)，以及俄狄浦斯式的结合 (Oedipodean connections，即乱伦)。随后，他逐一驳斥这些指控，尤其是无神论和乱伦的指控。他的辩驳沉着、清晰、雄辩而有定论。他说，按照一条神圣的法则，邪恶总是在与美德争战。因此苏格拉底被判处死刑，也因此有人编造故事来诬蔑我们。我们远非犯下所控告的那些放纵之事，甚至连心中对妇女动淫念也是不许可的。我们在这一点上如此严格，以致我们若非终身不婚，便只是为了生育儿女而结婚，而且一生只结婚一次。这里显露出他与当时世代共有的禁欲倾向。他甚至谴责再婚为“体面的奸淫”。基督徒比异教徒更为仁慈，他们将堕胎、杀婴和角斗表演都斥为杀人。

另一篇署名为他所作的论文《论死人的复活》(On the Resurrection of the Dead)，从上帝的智慧、能力和公义，以及人的归宿出发，为这项尤其令希腊人的心智反感的教义作了精湛的论证。这是一篇实际向哲学听众发表过的讲论。或许正因如此，他没有诉诸圣经。

所有历史学家都对雅典那哥拉评价甚高。唐纳森 (Donaldson) 说：“他写作时，仿佛一个决意要使事情的实情得到确切了解的人。他运用明喻，偶尔采用对照，也引用诗歌；但他的主要目标始终清楚地摆在心中，他既不无谓地炫耀自己的才华，也不用离题的话分散读者的注意力。他的《护教辞》是那个时代为基督徒所作的最佳辩护。”斯宾塞·曼塞尔 (Spencer Mansel) 称他“显然优于大多数护教士，文笔优雅，毫无赘语，风格遒劲，描写时偶尔达到极有感染力的境地，而其推理则以清晰和有力见长”。

蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 在他对再婚的谴责和对先知默感的看法中发现了孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的痕迹；但前者在希腊人中很普遍，后者也是殉道者游斯丁 (Justin M.) 等人所持的观点。雅典那哥拉说，先知处于心神出离的状态，上帝的灵“使用他们，犹如吹笛者向笛中吹气”。孟他努 (Montanus) 则用拨子和里拉琴作比喻。

§ 176. 安提阿的提阿非罗

奥托 (Otto)，第VIII卷。米涅 (Migne)，VI，第1023–1168栏。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)：《批判史》(Critical History)，III. 63–106。勒南 (Renan)：《马可·奥勒留》(Marc-Aur.)，386页及下页。

特奥德·察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《安提阿的提阿非罗的福音书注释》(Der Evanqelien-commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien)。埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1883年（302页）。这是其《新约正典与古代教会文献史研究》(Forschung zur Gesch. des neutestam. Kanons und der altkirchlichen Lit.) 的第二部分。另参其《革利免文献补编》(Supplementum Clementinum)，1884年，第198–276页（为自己辩护，以回应哈纳克）。

哈纳克 (Harnack)：《文献》(Texte) 等，第I卷，第II分册，282–298页，以及第IV分册（I 8., 3），97–175页（论提阿非罗的《福音书注释》，反驳察恩）。

A. 豪克 (A. Hauck)：《论提阿非罗问题》(Zur Theophilusfrage)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1844年；另见赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 第二版，XV. 544。

W. 博尔内曼 (W. Bornemann)：《论提阿非罗问题》(Zur Theophilusfrage)；载《布里格尔教会史杂志》(Brieger’s Zeitschrift f. Kirchen-Geschte)，1888年，第169–283页。

提阿非罗 (Theophilus) 因研读圣经而从异教归信，在马可·奥勒留统治后期担任安提阿 (Antioch) 主教，是自使徒以来的第六任。他约于公元181年去世。¹⁸³

他的主要著作，也是唯一传世的著作，是写给一位受过教育的异教朋友奥托吕库斯 (Autolycus) 的三卷书。¹⁸⁴ 他的主要目的是使这位朋友确信偶像崇拜的虚妄和基督教的真实。他表现出对希腊文学的广博知识、相当的哲学才华，以及生动优雅的写作能力。他对哲学家和诗人的态度十分严厉，与殉道者游斯丁的宽宏相比，显得逊色。他承认苏格拉底和柏拉图思想中有真理的成分，却指责他们从先知那里窃取了这些真理。他认为，旧约已经包含人所需要知道的一切真理。他最先用“三一体”（triad）一词指称神圣的三位一体，并且已经在“我们要造人”（创1:26）这句话中发现了这一奥秘；因为他说：“上帝不是对别人说话，而是对自己的理性和自己的智慧说话”，即对具有位格的逻各斯 (Logos) 和圣灵说话。¹⁸⁵ 他也是第一个指名引用《约翰福音》的人，¹⁸⁶ 但在他以前，他提安、雅典那哥拉、游斯丁和诺斯替派无疑已经知道并使用这部福音书，其踪迹可以上溯至125年，那时使徒的许多亲传门徒尚在人世。提阿非罗描述基督徒说，他们心智健全，实行自制，持守一夫一妻，保持贞洁，驱除不义，根除罪恶，以行义为常，依律法规范行为，受真理支配，持守恩典与和平，并以上帝为王而顺服他。他们被禁止观看角斗表演和其他公共娱乐，以免耳目受到玷污。他们奉命顺服掌权者，为他们祷告，却不敬拜他们。

提阿非罗其他论战性和释经性的著作都已散佚。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 提到一部反驳赫尔摩根尼 (Hermogenes) 的书，其中援引《约翰启示录》为证；还有一部反驳马吉安 (Marcion) 的书，以及“若干教理讲授书”（希腊文）。哲罗姆还提到《箴言》和福音书的注释，但怀疑其真实性。有一种带有释经性质的《福音合参》署着他的名字，虽然只存拉丁文本，却是后世的汇编，年代和作者都无法确定。

附注

哲罗姆是唯一提到提阿非罗一部或多部福音书注释的古代作家，但他补充说，这些注释在文笔和风格上不及他的其他著作；由此表露出对其真实性的怀疑。《名人传》(De Vir ill.) 25：La734^* “Legi sub nomine eius [Theophili] in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis Commentarios, (qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum [即《驳马吉安》Contra Marcionem、《致奥托吕库斯》Ad Autolycum 和《驳赫尔摩根尼》Contra Hermogenem] elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere.”（“我读过署在他〔提阿非罗〕名下的福音书和《所罗门箴言》注释；在我看来，这些注释的文采和措辞与上述各卷并不相称。”）他还在另外两处提到这部《福音书注释》（其《马太福音注释》[Com. on Matthew] 的序言，以及《书信》第121封 [Ep. 121，ad Algasiam，致阿尔加西娅]），并引用其中对不义管家比喻的解释（路16:1及下文）。优西比乌或许把这部书包括在他归于提阿非罗名下的 κατηχητικὰ βιβλία^* 之内。

这部注释的拉丁译本最初由玛格·德·拉比涅 (Marg. de la Bigne) 刊行（所依据的抄本未予说明，后来也已散佚），载于《教父圣书集》(Sacrae, Bibliothecae Patrum)，巴黎，1576年，第V卷，第169–196栏；奥托也将其收入《护教士文集》(Corp. Ap.)，VIII. 278–324；察恩则在其《新约正典史研究》(Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons) 第二卷（1883年），第31–85页刊出，并附有博学的注释。这部注释开篇对四福音书的象征意义作如下解释：“Quatuor evangelia quatuor animalibus figurata Jesum Christum demonstrant. Matthaeus enim salvatorem nostrum natum passumque homini comparavit. Marcus leonis gerens figuram a solitudine incipit dicens: ’ Vox clamantis in deserto: parate viam Domini,’ sane qui regnat invictus. Joannes habet similitudinem aquilae, quod ab imis alta petiverit; ait enim: ’In principio erat Verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; hoc erat in principio apud Deum; vel quia Christus resurgens volavit ad cœlos. Lucas vituli speciem gestat, ad instar salvator noster est immolatus, vel quod sacerdotii figurat officium.”（“四福音书以四活物为象征，显明耶稣基督。马太将降生并受难的救主比作人。马可带着狮子的形象，从旷野开始，说：‘在旷野有人声喊着：预备主的道’，他诚然是那作王而不败的。约翰具有鹰的形象，因为他从低处飞向高处；他说：‘太初有道，道与上帝同在，道就是上帝；这道太初与上帝同在’；又或因为基督复活后飞升诸天。路加带着牛犊的形象，因为我们的救主像牛犊一样被献为祭，或因为这象征祭司的职分。”）路加被置于第四位，十分特别，也说明其年代极为古老。随后简要解释马太所载基督的家谱，并指出马太“循君王的世系”（per reges）追溯其出身，路加则“循祭司的世系”（per sacerdotes）。这部注释的第一卷主要论马太，第二和第三卷论路加，第四卷论约翰。全书以一个巧妙的寓意解释结束，将基督描绘成园丁（他向抹大拉的马利亚显现时如此，约20:15），将教会描绘成他那百花丰茂的园子，文字如下（见察恩，第85页）：“Hortus Domini est ecclesia catholica, in qua sunt rosae martyrum, lilia virginum, violae viduarum, hedera coniugum; nam illa, quae aestimabat eum hortulanum esse significabat scilicet eum plantantem diversis virtutibus credentium vitam. Amen.”（“主的园子就是大公教会，其中有殉道者的玫瑰、童贞者的百合、寡妇的紫罗兰和已婚者的常春藤；因为那以为他是园丁的妇人，所表明的正是他以各种美德栽培信徒的生命。阿们。”）

察恩博士在他最近的专论（1883年）中，凭借罕见的丰富教父学知识，力证这部注释出自安提阿的提阿非罗，并将译本的年代定在第三世纪。果真如此，我们在这里便有了一部在护教和释经上都极为重要的著作，尤其对于正典史和经文史而言；因为提阿非罗处于殉道者游斯丁和爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 之间，他将成为最早的基督教释经家。然而，书中习以为常地使用诸如 regnum Christi catholicum（基督的大公国度）、catholica doctrina（大公教义）、catholicum dogma（大公信条）、sacerdos（祭司）、peccatum originale（原罪）、monachi（修士）、saeculares（世俗之人）、pagani（异教徒）等术语，清楚表明其中的神学和教会组织已经发展到了尼西亚时期或其后的阶段。在布鲁塞尔发现的一部此注释抄本，进一步证实了它成书较晚的疑点；其中有一篇匿名序言，声明此书是一部汇编。作出这一发现的哈纳克有力地驳斥了察恩的结论，并试图证明，这部归于提阿非罗名下的注释，是第五或第六世纪（470–520年）一位匿名作者所作的拉丁文著作。察恩（1884年）为自己从前的立场作了部分辩护，以回应哈纳克，但也承认布鲁塞尔抄本所提供的论据分量甚重。豪克认为这部注释写于公元200年之后，但哲罗姆曾经使用过它。博尔内曼成功地维护了哈纳克的观点，反驳察恩和豪克，并把这部著作的年代定在450至700年之间。

§ 177. 撒狄的米利都

（I.）优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，IV. 13、26；V. 25。哲罗姆 (Hieron.)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，24。米利都 (Melito) 的遗篇见劳思 (Routh)《圣文遗存》(Reliq. acr.)，I. 113–153；更完整的汇集见奥托 (Otto)《护教士文集》(Corp. Ap.)，IX（1872年），375–478。他的第二篇《护教辞》真实性存疑，见库尔顿 (Cureton)《叙利亚文拾遗》(Spicilegium Syriacum)，伦敦 (Lond.)，1835年（叙利亚文，附英译），以及皮特拉 (Pitra)《索莱姆拾遗》(Spicil. Solesm.)，II（附勒南的拉丁译文，经奥托修订，见《护教士文集》Corp. Ap.，第IX卷）；韦尔特 (Welte) 的德译载于1862年图宾根《神学季刊》（Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift）。

（II）皮珀 (Piper)，载1838年《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken)，第54、154页。乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)，载1866年《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.)。唐纳森 (Donaldson)，III. 221–239。施泰茨 (Steitz)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 第二版，IX. 537–539。莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，载1876年2月《当代评论》(Contemp. Review)。哈纳克 (Harnack)：《文献》(Texte) 等，I. 240–278。萨蒙 (Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，III. 894–900。勒南 (Renan)：《马可·奥勒留》(Marc-Auréle)，172页及下页。（另参《基督教会》L’église chrét.，第436页的简短记述。）

米利都 (Melito) 是吕底亚 (Lydia) 首府撒狄 (Sardis) 的主教，¹⁸⁷在第二世纪第三个四分之一时期，是小亚细亚众教会中的一盏明灯。以弗所的波利克拉底 (Polycrates) 在致罗马主教维克托 (Victor，卒于195年) 的信中，称他为“一位太监，他的一切行为都充满圣灵，如今长眠于撒狄，等候复活之日从天而来的眷顾（或临察，,）”。“太监”一词无疑是指为上帝的国而自愿独身（《马太福音》19:12）。¹⁸⁸他也被尊为先知。他写过一部论预言的书，可能是针对孟他努派 (Montanists) 的假预言；但他与孟他努主义的关系并不清楚。他积极参与了震动小亚细亚众教会的逾越节争论及其他争论。他是十四日派 (Quartadeciman) 惯例的主要支持者之一，而这一惯例后来被判为分裂教会和异端的做法。这也许是他的著作湮没无闻的一个原因。除此以外，按照他那个时代的标准，他是相当正统的，并且坚信基督的神性；下文所引的一篇叙利亚文残篇清楚表明了这一点。

米利都是一位才思卓越、著述极丰的人。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 说他的才华优雅而雄辩。¹⁸⁹优西比乌 (Eusebius) 列举他的著作不下十八或二十部，涉及极为广泛的题目，如今我们却只知道这些书名。¹⁹⁰优西比乌保存了三段宝贵的摘录。第二世纪中叶以后，小亚细亚的著述活动必定异常繁盛。¹⁹¹米利都的《护教辞》(Apology) 是呈给马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 的，大概写于177年猛烈的逼迫爆发之时；不过，这些逼迫具有地方性或行省性，并未得到中央政府的批准。他指出，皇帝中只有尼禄和图密善曾逼迫基督徒，并表示希望奥勒留若获悉实情，就会出面保护无辜的基督徒。《逾越节编年史》(Paschal Chronicle) 保存了他的一段话：“我们并不敬拜毫无知觉的石头，而只敬拜一位上帝，他在万有之先，又在万有之上；也敬拜他的基督，就是万世以前真实为神的道。”

一篇署有他名字的叙利亚文《护教辞》¹⁹²，于1843年由塔塔姆 (Tattam) 在尼特里亚 (Nitrian) 沙漠的修道院中与其他叙利亚文抄本一同发现，并由库尔顿 (Cureton) 和皮特拉 (Pitra) 于1855年刊行。但其中没有优西比乌所引的任何段落；与其说它是在为基督教辩护，不如说是在抨击偶像崇拜，然而它仍可能是米利都的一部著作，只是标题有误。

我们所拥有的第一份基督徒编列的希伯来圣经书目，出自米利都。它与犹太人和新教的正典一致，没有列入次经。《以斯帖记》和《尼希米记》也未列出，但可能包含在《以斯拉书》(Esdras) 之内。“旧书”和“旧约之书”等用语，意味着当时教会已有新约正典。米利都曾到巴勒斯坦探访，以求了解犹太人的正典。

他写过一部《启示录》注释，以及一部《钥匙》（），后者可能是解释圣经的著作。¹⁹³

这部书与他的《论教会》和《论主日》一同失传，或许是最令人惋惜的。

库尔顿刊行的米利都叙利亚文残篇中，有一篇出自《论信仰》，其中包含一份引人注目的基督论信经，是对 Regula Fidei（信仰准则）的雄辩铺陈。¹⁹⁴主耶稣基督被承认为完全的理性、上帝的道；他在光出现以前受生；他与父同为创造者；他是人的塑造者；他在万有之中为万有；他在族长中为族长，在律法中为律法，在祭司中为大祭司，在君王中为君王，在先知中为先知，在天使中为天使长；他为挪亚掌舵，引导亚伯拉罕，与以撒一同被捆绑，与雅各一同流亡，与摩西一同作统帅；他借大卫和众先知预言自己所要受的苦；他在童贞女腹中道成肉身；受博士敬拜；他医治瘸腿的人，使瞎眼的人得见光明，被百姓弃绝，被彼拉多定罪，被挂在木头上，埋在地里，从死里复活，向使徒显现，升到天上；他是离世之人的安息，是失丧之人的挽回者，是瞎眼之人的光，是受苦之人的避难所，是教会的新郎，是基路伯的御车者，是天使的统帅；他是出于神的神，是父的儿子，是作王直到永永远远的君王。

§ 178. 希拉波立的阿波利拿里；米尔提亚德

克劳狄乌·阿波利拿里 (Claudius Apolinarius)¹⁹⁵是弗吕家 (Phrygia) 希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 的主教，也是帕皮亚 (Papias) 的继任者；约在公元160–180年间，他是一位极为活跃的护教与论战作家。他在孟他努派争论和逾越节争论中起了主导作用。优西比乌将他与撒狄的米利都同列于第二世纪的正统作家之中，并在他的“许多著作”中，提到自己所知道、但后来已经失传的四部，即呈给马可·奥勒留的《护教辞》（174年以前）、《驳希腊人五卷》、《论真理二卷》、《驳犹太人二卷》。他还提到阿波利拿里后来约于172年所写的《驳弗吕家人的异端》（即孟他努派）诸卷。¹⁹⁶

阿波利拿里反对十四日派守复活节的惯例，而米利都则为之辩护。¹⁹⁷哲罗姆 (Jerome) 提到他熟悉异教文学，却又把他列在千禧年派 (Chiliasts) 之中。¹⁹⁸鉴于他反对孟他努主义，后一说法值得怀疑。佛提乌 (Photius) 赞扬他的文体。他被列入圣徒之中。¹⁹⁹

米尔提亚德 (Miltiades) 是第二世纪后半叶的另一位基督教护教士，他的著作全已失传。优西比乌所提及的，包括一篇呈给世界统治者的《护教辞》、一部《驳希腊人》和另一部《驳犹太人》；但他没有提供摘录。²⁰⁰德尔图良将他列在殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 与爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 之间。²⁰¹

§ 179. 赫尔米亚斯

Ἑρμείου φιλοσόφου Διασυρμὸς τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων^*，Hermiae Philosophi Gentilium Philosophorum Irrisio（哲学家赫尔米亚斯《嘲讽异教哲学家》），共十章。初版附拉丁译文，巴塞尔 (Basel)，1553年；苏黎世 (Zurich)，1560年。沃思 (Worth) 将其附入他所编的塔提安 (Tatian) 著作，牛津 (Oxf.)，1700年。亦收入奥托 (Otto) 和马拉努斯 (Maranus) 的版本（米涅版 Migne，第VI卷，第1167–1180栏）。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)，III. 179–181。

我们有一部署名为“哲学家”赫尔米亚斯 (Hermias，Ἑρμείας^* 或 Ἑρμίας^*) 的《嘲讽异教哲学家》；除此以外，我们对他一无所知。这部作品以机智和讥讽为轻巧的武器，揭露各种体系之间的矛盾，力求从哲学史证明保罗所说的话是真实的：这世界的智慧，在上帝看乃是愚拙。他将虚假的哲学归源于鬼魔。他先讨论异教徒关于灵魂的相互冲突的观念，继而讨论他们关于世界起源的观念，并加以嘲笑。以下是他讨论第一个题目的一段示例：

“我承认，事物的反复变化使我烦恼。因为此刻我是不死的，我便欢喜；但转眼我又成了必死的，我便哭泣；紧接着，我又分解为原子。我变成水，又变成空气；我变成火；但过了一会儿，我既不是空气，也不是火；一个人把我变成野兽，另一个人把我变成鱼。这样一来，海豚又成了我的兄弟。但当我看见自己时，我害怕自己的身体，不再知道该怎样称呼它，究竟是人，是狗，是狼，是公牛，是鸟，是蛇，是龙，还是奇美拉。哲学家把我变成各样的野兽，变成陆上和水中生活的动物，变成有翅膀的、形态各异的、野生的、驯养的、不能说话的、能说话的、有理性的和无理性的动物。我游泳、飞翔、爬行、奔跑、坐着；还有恩培多克勒 (Empedocles)，他又把我变成了一丛灌木。”

这部作品篇幅短小，无甚重要性。²⁰²有人将它的年代定在第三或第四世纪；但作者自称“哲学家”（尽管他对自己的专业作了歪曲），他所面对的教会处境类似马可·奥勒留统治时期，并且在许多方面与较早的护教士以及路吉安 (Lucian) 相似；路吉安同样以敏锐的机智嘲讽哲学家，不过是站在不信的异教立场上。因此，我们大可以将他定在第二世纪后期。

§ 180. 赫格西卜

（I.）优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，II. 23；III. 11、16、19、20、32；IV. 8、22。残篇汇集见格拉贝 (Grabe)《拾遗》(Spicil.)，II. 203–214；劳思 (Routh)《圣文遗存》(Reliq. S.)，I. 205–219；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 所编《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theol.)，1876及1878年。

（II.）劳思 (Routh)：《赫格西卜残篇注释》(Annotationes in Heges. Fragm.)，I. 220–292（极有价值）。唐纳森 (Donaldson)：前引书 (L. c.)，III. 182–213。讷斯根 (Nösgen)：《赫格西卜的教会立场》(Der Kirchl. Standpunkt des Heg.)，载布里格尔 (Brieger) 编《教会史杂志》(Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.)，1877年，第193–233页。反驳希尔根费尔德。察恩 (Zahn)：《十六世纪的希腊文爱任纽与赫格西卜全本》(Der griech. Irenaeus und der ganze Hegesippus im 16^ten Jahr.)，同刊，第288–291页。H. 丹罗伊特 (H. Dannreuther)：《赫格西卜关于头两个世纪基督教会的见证》(Du Témoignage d’Hégésippe sur l’église chrétienne au deux premiers siècles.)，南锡 (Nancy)，1878年。另见他在利希滕贝格尔 (Lichtenberger)《百科全书》(Encycl.) 中的文章，VI. 126–129。弗里德尔·福格尔 (Friedr. Vogel)：《论所谓约瑟夫斯译者赫格西卜》(De Hegesippo, qui dicitur, Josephi interprete.)，埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1881年。W. 米利根 (W. Milligan)：《赫格西卜》(Hegesippus)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，II（1880年），875–878。C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker)：《赫格西卜》(Hegesippus)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，V. 695–700。卡斯帕里 (Caspari)：《史料》(Quellen) 等，III. 345–348。

图宾根 (Tübingen) 批判学派的鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler)，以及态度较为温和的希尔根费尔德，都否认赫格西卜的正统性；多尔纳 (Dorner)、唐纳森、讷斯根、魏茨泽克、卡斯帕里和米利根则为之辩护。

与护教士同时代、却不属于他们这一类的，有赫格西卜 (Hegesippus，约卒于180年)，以及哥林多的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius，约170年)。

赫格西卜是一位正统的犹太基督徒，²⁰³生活于哈德良 (Hadrian)、安敦尼 (Antoninus) 和马可·奥勒留统治时期。他广游叙利亚、希腊和意大利，并在阿尼凯图 (Anicetus) 任主教时到过罗马。他搜集了使徒时期和后使徒时期各教会的《回忆录》。²⁰⁴他采用了文字史料和口头传统。不幸的是，这部在十六世纪尚存的著作²⁰⁵已经失传，但仍有重新发现的可能。人们通常把它看作某种教会史，是继圣路加的《使徒行传》之后第一部这样的著作。如此一来，“教会史之父”便应是赫格西卜，而不是优西比乌。但这部书似乎只是旅途见闻的汇集，并未顾及年代顺序（否则，雅各殉道的记载就会置于第一卷，而不是第五卷）。与其说他是历史家，不如说他是考古学者。他的主要目的，是针对诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 异端和宗派，证明教会的纯正性和大公性。

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 保存了他关于义人圣雅各、耶路撒冷的西面 (Simeon) 殉道，图密善查问大卫的后裔和耶稣的亲属，异端的兴起，主教的继承，以及哥林多和罗马保守正统教义的记载。这些历史片段因其年代古老而值得重视；但接受它们时，必须持审慎的批判态度。它们显露出一种浓厚的犹太式敬虔，与雅各相似，却绝不是犹太化的异端。他不是伊便尼派 (Ebionite)，甚至也不是拿撒勒派 (Nazarene)，而是明确属于大公教会的。没有丝毫迹象表明，他坚持以割礼或遵守律法为得救的必要条件。他使用《希伯来人福音》("the Gospel according to the Hebrews")，并不意味着带有异端倾向。他把一切异端和分裂都追溯到犹太教。他极为重视主教按常规而有的使徒传承。他每到一城，都着意查考两件事：教义是否纯正，以及从使徒时代以来教师的继承是否从未中断。在他看来，前者有赖于后者。他的考察结果，在这两方面都是令人满意的。他发现，每一个使徒所建立的教会都持守着信仰。他说：“哥林多教会一直持守真信仰，直到普里穆斯 (Primus) 在那里任主教的时候［他是狄奥尼修的前任］。我与他交往甚密，因为我将要乘船前往罗马时，曾在哥林多住了许多日子，其间我们在真道上彼此得了振奋。到罗马以后，我与阿尼凯图同住，他的执事是埃琉特鲁 (Eleutherus)。阿尼凯图以后，索特尔 (Soter) 继任，索特尔以后则是埃琉特鲁。然而，在每一代的继承中，在每一座城里，通行的教义都符合律法、先知和主所宣告的。”²⁰⁶他叙述了异端的败坏如何从不信的犹太人，从忒布提斯 (Thebuthis)、行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)、克利奥比乌 (Cleobius)、多西修 (Dositheus)，以及其他不为人知或已被遗忘的人物而来；但是，“当使徒们这一神圣的群体尚在人世时，教会如同童女一般，无玷污而纯洁，直到图拉真 (Trajan) 的时代，那些长久在暗中潜行的不敬虔谬误，才肆无忌惮地公然显露在光天化日之下。”²⁰⁷他在当时的大公教会中感到完全安适；这教会已经从使徒知识与自由的崇高山巅下降，或者更确切地说，还从未登上那山巅。赫格西卜既满意于西方各教会的正统性，优西比乌也同样满意于赫格西卜的正统性，从未流露丝毫疑虑。

§ 181. 哥林多的狄奥尼修

优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，II. 25；III. 4；IV. 21, 23。哲罗姆 (Hieron.)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，27。

劳思 (Routh)：《圣教文献遗存》(Rel. S.)，I. 177–184（残篇），185–201（注释）。其中包括克里特的皮尼图斯 (Pinytus Cretensis) 及其《致狄奥尼修书》(Ep. ad Dion.)（优西比乌，Eus. IV. 23）。

唐纳森 (Donaldson)，III. 214–220。萨蒙 (Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，II. 848及下页。

狄奥尼修在第二世纪的第三个二十五年间任哥林多主教（很可能是普里穆斯的继任者），直到约公元170年。他是当时的名人，以热忱、温和，以及大公而爱好和平的精神著称。他写了许多牧函，寄给拉栖代梦 (Lacedaemon)、雅典 (Athens)、尼哥米底亚 (Nicomedia)、罗马、克里特的戈尔提那 (Gortyna) 及其他城市的会众。其中一封是写给“极其忠信的姊妹”克里索福拉 (Chrysophora) 的。这些书信全都失传，只留下优西比乌所述的内容梗概，以及致索特尔和罗马教会书信的四个残篇。这些书信无疑本可大大阐明当时教会的属灵生活。优西比乌说，他“将自己属神的（或受默示的）勤勉所带来的福分，不仅慷慨地分给本地的人，也分给外地的人”。²⁰⁸他的书信曾在各教会中宣读。

如此活跃的书信往来，促进了大公教会的合一，并在外有逼迫、内有异端败坏之际，给予力量和安慰。信中通常尊重地提及主教，但收信的对象却是教会；就连罗马主教索特尔，也像他的前任革利免一样，以罗马教会的名义写信给哥林多教会。狄奥尼修写信给罗马的基督徒说：“今日我们守了主的圣日，在这日我们宣读了你们的书信。²⁰⁹我们读这封信，心中必常得劝勉，正如从前革利免写给我们的那封信一样。”他极力称赞罗马教会的慷慨，称他们救济外地被判在矿场服苦役的弟兄，并向各城寄送捐助。

希腊教会尊狄奥尼修为殉道者，拉丁教会则尊他为认信者。

§ 182. 爱任纽

著作版本。

《里昂主教圣爱任纽现存著作全集》(S. Irenaei Episcopi Lugdun. Opera quae supersunt omnia)，A. 施蒂伦 (A. Stieren) 编。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1853年，2卷。第二卷收录了早期编者的绪论，以及马费伊 (Maffei) 与普法夫 (Pfaff) 关于爱任纽残篇的论辩。此版实际上取代了所有旧版，却不能取代后来哈维 (Harvey) 的版本。

《圣爱任纽反异端五卷》(S. Irenaei libros quinque adversus Haereses edidit)，W. 威根·哈维 (W. Wigan Harvey) 编。剑桥 (Cambr.)，1857年，2卷。此版以重新仔细校勘的克拉罗蒙塔努斯抄本 (Cod. Claromontanus) 和阿伦德尔抄本 (Arundel) 为基础，收录了希坡律陀 (Hippolytus)《驳斥一切异端》(Philosoph.) 所保存的希腊原文部分、新近发现的叙利亚文和亚美尼亚文残篇，以及博学的绪论。

较早的版本有：伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 编，巴塞尔 (Basel)，1526年（依据三部现已失传的拉丁文抄本，1528、1534年再版）；加拉修 (Gallasius) 编，日内瓦 (Gen.)，1570年（采用了埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphan.) 著作中的希腊文本）；格里奈乌斯 (Grynaeus) 编，巴塞尔 (Bas.)，1571年（无价值）；费瓦尔登修 (Fevardentius)（Feuardent）编，巴黎 (Paris)，1575年，修订版于1596年在科隆 (Col.) 出版，此后多次重印；格拉贝 (Grabe) 编，牛津 (Oxf.)，1702年；尤其是马叙埃 (Massuet) 编，巴黎 (Par.)，1710年，威尼斯 (Ven.)，1734年，2卷，对开本，后又收入米涅 (Migne) 的《希腊—拉丁教父文库》(Patrol. Graeco-Lat.)，第VII卷，巴黎，1857年（本笃会版，是旧版中最佳者，以三部抄本为依据，附有详尽的绪论和三篇专论）。

英译本由A. 罗伯茨 (A. Roberts) 和W. H. 兰博特 (W. H. Rambaut) 译，2卷，收入《尼西亚前期文库》("Ante-Nicene Library")，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1868年。另一译本由约翰·基布尔 (John Keble) 译，普西博士 (Dr. Pusey) 编，收入牛津《教父文库》("Library of the Fathers")，1872年。

传记与批判研究

勒内·马叙埃 (Ren. Massuet，罗马天主教徒)：《爱任纽著作论集》(Dissertationes in Irenaei libros)（论异端、爱任纽的生平、事迹与著作、爱任纽的教义：de hereticis, de Irenaei vita, gestis et scriptis, de Ir. doctrina），置于其所编《全集》之前，并在施蒂伦和米涅的版本中重印。另见哈维论诺斯替主义及爱任纽生平与著作的绪论。

H. 多德韦尔 (H. Dodwell)：《爱任纽论集》(Dissert. in Iren.)。牛津 (Oxon.)，1689年。

蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)：《史料集》(Mêmoirs) 等，III. 77–99。

戴林 (Deyling)：《爱任纽：福音真理的认信者与见证人》(Irenaeus, evangelicae veritatis confessor ac testis.)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1721年。（反驳马叙埃。）

施蒂伦 (Stieren)：《爱任纽》(Irenaeus) 条，载《埃尔施与格鲁伯百科全书》("Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl.")，第二部，第xxiii卷，第357–386页。

J. 比文 (J. Beaven)：《爱任纽的生平与著作》(Life and Writings of Irenaeus)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1841年。

J. M. 普拉 (J. M. Prat，罗马天主教徒)：《圣爱任纽史》(Histoire de St. Irenée.)。里昂 (Lyon) 与巴黎，1843年。

L. 敦克尔 (L. Duncker)：《圣爱任纽的基督论》(Des heil. Irenaeus Christologie.)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1843年。极有价值。

K. 格劳尔 (K. Graul)：《爱任纽时代前夕的基督教会》(Die Christliche Kirche an der Schwelle des Irenaeischen Zeitalters.)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1860年。（168页。）这是一部未曾问世的传记的导论。

Ch. E. 弗雷佩尔 (Ch. E. Freppel，自1869年起任昂热主教)：《圣爱任纽与头两个世纪高卢的基督教雄辩术》(Saint Irénée et l’éloquence chrétienne dans la Gaule aux deux premiers siècles.)。巴黎 (Par.)，1861年。

G. 施内曼 (G. Schneemann)：《圣爱任纽关于罗马教会首位权的见证》(Sancti Irenaei de ecclesiae Romanae principatu testimonium)。布赖斯高的弗赖堡 (Freib. i. Br.)，1870年。

伯林格 (Böhringer)：《基督的教会及其见证人》(Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen)，第II卷，新版，1873年。

海因里希·齐格勒 (Heinrich Ziegler)：《里昂主教爱任纽》(Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon.)。柏林 (Berlin)，1871年。（320页。）

R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《里昂的爱任纽的时代与古代大公教会的形成》(Die Zeit des lrenaeus von Lyon und die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche)，载叙贝尔 (Sybel) 编《历史杂志》("Histor. Zeitschrift.")。慕尼黑 (München)，1872年，第241页及后。其较晚的文章见下。

A. 吉尤 (A. Guilloud)：《圣爱任纽及其时代》(St. Irenée et son temps.)。里昂 (Lyon)，1876年。

莱特福特主教 (Bp. Lightfoot)：《高卢的众教会》(The Churches of Gaul)，载《当代评论》("Contemporary Review")，1876年8月。

C. J. H. 罗普斯 (C. J. H. Ropes)：《里昂的爱任纽》(Irenaeus of Lyons)，载安多弗 (Andover)《神圣文库》("Bibliotheca Sacra")，1877年4月，第284–334页。这是一篇考论爱任纽民族归属的博学文章（反驳哈维）。

J. 夸里 (J. Quarry)：《爱任纽；他对早期基督教观念的见证》(Irenaeus; his testimony to early Conceptions of Christianity.)。载《英国季评》("British Quarterly Review")，1879年7月及10月。

勒南 (Renan)：《马可·奥勒留》(Marc Aurèle.)。巴黎，1882年，第336–344页。

TH. 察恩 (TH. Zahn)：《爱任纽》(Iren.) 条，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，VII. 129–140（《沙弗—赫尔佐格百科全书》中有节本），主要讨论年代问题；以及R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius) 的文章，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，III. 253–279。这两篇文章都极其重要；利普修斯的一篇更为详尽。

另参尼安德 (Neander) 和鲍尔 (Baur) 的《教会史》(Ch. Hist.)，以及默勒 (Möhler) 和阿尔措格 (Alzog) 的《教父学》(Patrol.)。

爱任纽的个别教义及其关系，曾由鲍尔、多尔纳 (Dorner)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、赫夫林 (Höfling)、霍普芬米勒 (Hopfenmiller)、克尔伯 (Körber)、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、基尔希纳 (Kirchner)、察恩、哈纳克 (Harnack)、莱姆巴赫 (Leimbach)、雷维尔 (Reville)、哈肯施密特 (Hackenschmidt) 加以讨论。参见察恩在赫尔佐格 (Herzog)² 所撰条目的参考文献。

一部关于爱任纽及其时代、详尽而令人满意的专著，仍有待问世。

几乎就在针对教会之外虚假宗教的护教著作兴起的同时，针对异端，即各种形式的伪基督教、尤其是诺斯替主义的论战文献也随之出现；教会的教义神学便在这一基础上形成。居于古代大公教会论战家之首的，是爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 及其门徒希坡律陀 (Hippolytus)。两人都受过希腊教育，但就其教会关系和工作而言，却都属于西方。

小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 是圣约翰最后工作的地方，涌现了一系列光辉的神学家和认信者；他们在第二世纪的头三个二十五年间，反照着使徒时期落日的光芒，可称为圣约翰的学生。其中有士每拿的坡旅甲 (Polycarp of Smyrna)、希拉波立的帕皮亚 (Papias of Hierapolis)、希拉波立的亚波利拿里 (Apolinarius of Hierapolis)、撒狄的米利都 (Melito of Sardis)，以及其他一些较少为人所知、却在以弗所的坡利克拉底 (Polycrates of Ephesus) 致罗马主教维克多 (Victor) 的书信（公元190年）中受到尊重地提及的人物。

这一学派最后而又最伟大的代表，是爱任纽；他在严格意义上所谓的教父中居于首位，也是大公教会教义体系的主要建造者之一。

I. 生平与品格。除去可以从他的著作中推知的事以外，我们对爱任纽所知甚少。他出身小亚细亚，很可能来自士每拿，他在那里度过了青年时代。²¹⁰他生于公元115至125年之间。²¹¹他有幸受教于约翰的门徒、德高望重的士每拿的坡旅甲，以及其他一些“长老”；这些人是使徒间接或直接的门徒。他老师的精神传给了他。他说：“我从他那里所听见的，不是写在纸上，而是写在心里；并且靠着上帝的恩典，我不断重新加以追忆。”他也可能在坡旅甲为复活节争论前往罗马时（154年），与他同行。他以宣教士的身份前往高卢 (Gaul) 南部；那里的基督教似乎是从小亚细亚传来的。马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 统治期间，卢格杜努姆 (Lugdunum) 和维埃纳 (Vienne) 发生逼迫（177年），当时他在那里任长老，亲眼见到狂怒的异教民众对他的弟兄所施行的可怕暴行。²¹²年高德劭的主教波提努斯 (Pothinus) 遇害，这位长老接下了这一危险的职位，却得以保全性命，承担重要的工作。

高卢的认信者曾差遣他前往罗马主教埃琉特鲁（任职于公元177–190年）那里，调解孟他努派 (Montanistic) 的争端。²¹³

波提努斯殉道以后，他被选为里昂 (Lyons) 主教（178年），在那里以言语和笔墨热忱工作，卓有成效，致力于重建这遭受重创的教会，在高卢传播基督教，并维护和发展基督教的教义。因此，他把广泛的宣教活动与著述活动结合起来。若图尔的格列高利 (Gregory of Tours) 的记载可信，他使里昂几乎全城居民归信，并差遣杰出的宣教士前往当时仍信奉异教的法国其他地区。

190年以后，我们便失去了爱任纽的踪迹。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 说，他活跃于康茂德 (Commodus) 在位期间，即180至192年。后来的传统（始于第四或第五世纪）说，他在塞普提米乌斯·塞韦鲁 (Septimus Severus) 统治下的逼迫中，于公元202年殉道；但德尔图良 (Tertullian)、希坡吕托斯 (Hippolytus)、优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 对此均保持沉默，使这一说法极为可疑。他葬在里昂圣约翰教堂的祭坛之下。²¹⁴这座城市在十二世纪又因成为瓦勒度派殉道教会——“里昂的穷人”(Pauperes de Lugduno)——的发源地，而再次闻名于教会史。

他的品格与地位。爱任纽是第二世纪最后四分之一时期大公基督教的主要代表，是抵御诺斯替异端、捍卫正统信仰的斗士，也是东西方教会之间的调解者。他兼具渊博的希腊学养、哲学的洞察力，以及实践的智慧与节制。他既非极富独创性，也非才华耀眼，却极为健全而明断。他的个性并不鲜明，几乎消融于他的大公性之中。他谦称自己没有优雅的文辞和雄辩的口才，并说在日常职务中不得不费力应付高卢南部鄙陋的凯尔特方言；然而，在论述最深奥的问题时，他仍能极为娴熟地运用希腊文。²¹⁵他熟悉希腊诗人（荷马〔Homer〕、赫西俄德〔Hesiod〕、品达〔Pindar〕、索福克勒斯〔Sophocles〕）和哲学家（泰勒斯〔Thales〕、毕达哥拉斯〔Pythagoras〕、柏拉图〔Plato〕），偶尔引用他们的话。他对于希腊文圣经和早期基督教作家，如罗马的革利免、坡旅甲、帕皮亚 (Papias)、伊格那丢 (Ignatius)、黑马 (Hermas)、殉道者游斯丁 (Justin M.) 和他提安 (Tatian)，更是驾轻就熟。²¹⁶他的地位使他的话更具分量，因为藉着他的老师和老师的老师这两位长寿者，他与基督教的源头相连。我们在他身上清楚看出坡旅甲和约翰的精神所留下的影响。他反对虚假的灵知 (Gnosis)，说：“通往上帝的真路乃是爱。宁可甘愿不知道别的，只知道钉十字架的耶稣基督，也不要因过度好奇的诘问和琐屑的诡辩而陷入不敬虔。”我们也能在他身上看出保罗的人论与救恩论的强烈影响。但他比约翰或保罗都更看重外在有形的教会、主教的承继和圣礼；而他对基督教的整个理解，主要带有律法主义的色彩。在这里，我们看见了第二世纪蓬勃兴起的大公教会意识。

爱任纽反对一切谬误与分裂，总的说来，是尼西亚会议以前最正统的教父。²¹⁷然而，他的末世论必须除外。在这一点上，他与帕皮亚以及大多数同时代人一样，坚持前千禧年论的观点；这些观点后来被大公教会当作犹太式的梦幻而摒弃。他虽竭力在地上传播并捍卫教会，却仍像加利利人一样“定睛望天”，热切等候主再来，建立他的国。他也因对犹太人在《约翰福音》8:57所提问题作了错误推论，而对耶稣的年龄有了令人诧异的误解。

爱任纽是教父作家中第一位充分运用新约的人。使徒教父重述口传的传统；护教士满足于引用旧约先知和福音书中主自己的话，以证明上帝的启示；但爱任纽针对诺斯替派对两约的割裂，阐明了旧约与新约的统一，并运用四福音书和几乎全部书信，反对马吉安 (Marcion) 残缺不全的正典。²¹⁸

爱任纽虽然热心维护纯正健全的教义，却宽容次要问题上的分歧；罗马主教企图在庆祝复活节的时间和方式上强求外在的一致，他便劝诫这位主教，指出这种做法不合使徒的精神。²¹⁹就他抗议教皇至上派的专制而言，我们几乎可以称他为高卢主义 (Gallicanism) 的先驱。他在第三篇残篇中说：“使徒已经定规，我们不应在饮食，或特定的节期、月朔、安息日上，向任何人的良心提出要求。那么，争论从何而来？分裂从何而来？我们守节，却带着邪恶与诡诈的酵，撕裂上帝的教会；我们遵守外在的事，却忽略了更高的信与爱。”这段话似乎就是针对那场争论而发。他在孟他努派的纷争中也表现出同样的节制。他无愧于自己名字的含义——和平的（希腊文）——也无愧于他的属灵传承。

他的著作。(1.) 爱任纽最重要的著作是五卷本《驳诺斯替主义》。²²⁰此书写于埃琉特鲁 (Eleutherus) 任罗马主教期间，即177至190年之间。²²¹它既是尼西亚会议以前神学论战的杰作，也是有关诺斯替主义及当时教会教义资料最丰富的宝库。它包含一个完整的基督教神学体系，却笼罩在论战的烟雾之中，读来十分艰涩冗长。此书是应一位朋友的请求而写的；这位朋友希望了解瓦伦廷派异端，并获得反驳它的论据。瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 和马吉安约于公元140年在罗马施教，他们的教义已经传到法国南部。第一卷详细陈述瓦伦廷华丽纷繁的玄思，并概述其他诺斯替宗派；第二卷揭露这些异端的不合理与自相矛盾，尤其论及下列观念：与创造主有别的造物者 (Demiurge)、诸永世体 (Aeons)、丰满界 (Pleroma) 与空虚界 (Kenoma)、流溢、阿卡摩特 (Achamoth) 的堕落、较低的物质世界的形成、索菲娅 (Sophia) 的受苦，以及属肉体者 (Somatici)、属魂者 (Psychici)、属灵者 (Pneumatici) 这三类人的区别。末后三卷依据圣经和基督教传统来反驳诺斯替主义，二者的教导是一致的；因为同一福音先是口头传讲、传递，后来才写成文字，并藉着主教和长老的有序承继，在所有使徒教会中得到忠实保存；这一使徒传统同时保证了对圣经的正确解释，抵御异端的曲解。爱任纽以大公教会不变的信仰，反对异端变幻不定、自相矛盾的意见；这一信仰以圣经和传统为基础，并由主教制组织紧密联结在一起。贝拉明 (Bellarmin)、博叙埃 (Bossuet) 和默勒 (Möhler) 用来反对分裂纷扰的新教的，也是同一个论据；但新教与古代诺斯替主义的差别，就如新约与伪经福音书的差别，又如健全、清醒、务实的见识与神秘而超验的无稽之谈的差别。第五卷详论身体的复活和千禧年国度。爱任纽的资料来自瓦伦廷、马吉安及其门徒的著作，也来自殉道者游斯丁的《汇编》(Syntagma)。²²²

他对圣经的解释大体健全而清醒，与诺斯替派荒诞的曲解相比，显然更胜一筹。他已隐约看见一种能恰当顾及人为因素的默示论。他把保罗文体上的不规则之处，归因于他行文的迅疾，以及他里面圣灵的推动。²²³

(2.) 《致弗洛里努书》(Epistle to Florinus) 论述的是《上帝的独一性与恶的起源》；优西比乌保存了其中一段饶有意味而又重要的残篇。²²⁴此书大概写于反异端著作之后，晚至190年。²²⁵弗洛里努 (Florinus) 是爱任纽年长的朋友和同学，曾一度任罗马教会的长老，但因背弃信仰、转向诺斯替异端而被革职。爱任纽以十分动人的笔触，提醒他回忆他们一同受教于德高望重的坡旅甲足下的岁月；那时弗洛里努在宫廷任某种职务（大概是在哈德良〔Hadrian〕逗留士每拿期间）。爱任纽试图使他回到青年时的信仰，但成效如何，我们不得而知。

(3.) 《论八元组》(On the Ogdoad)²²⁶反对瓦伦廷派的永世体体系；在这一体系中，八这个数字具有突出的地位和神秘的意义。优西比乌说，这部著作是因弗洛里努而写的，他还在其中发现了“一段极令人欣悦的话”，如下：“无论你是谁，抄写此书的人，我指着我们的主耶稣基督，并指着他将来审判活人死人的恩慈显现，郑重嘱咐你：要核对你所抄写的，并依照你仔细抄录所据的这份原稿加以校正。也要把这段嘱咐抄下，收入抄本之中。”当时抄写者的粗心，是希腊文新约文本出现异文的主要原因；这些异文在第二世纪就已十分繁多。爱任纽自己也提到，敌基督的神秘数字有一个显著的异读（666与616）；而对这卷书的历史解释，就取决于这一数字（启13:18）。

(4.) 《论分裂》(On Schism) 一书，致布拉斯图 (Blastus)；他是罗马孟他努派的首领，同时也是十四日派 (Quartodeciman)。²²⁷此书大概以和解的精神论及孟他努派的纷争。

(5.) 优西比乌提到²²⁸另外几部已经完全散佚的论著，如《驳希腊人》(Against the Greeks，或《论知识》〔On Knowledge〕)、《论使徒的传道》(On Apostolic Preaching)、《论各种争议》(Book on Various Disputes)²²⁹，以及一部论《所罗门智训》(Wisdom of Solomon) 的著作。叙利亚文残篇中还提及其他一些散佚的著作。

(6.) 关于177年逼迫的那篇感人记述，很可能也是爱任纽所作；里昂和维埃纳的教会曾将它寄给小亚细亚和弗里吉亚 (Phrygia) 的众教会，优西比乌保存了其中的大部分。他亲眼目睹了那残酷的场面，文中却未提到他的名字，这与他的谦逊十分相符；这篇文献洋溢着他温和的基督徒精神，显露出他对诺斯替主义的厌恶、对孟他努主义的宽容，以及他对敌基督即将来到的预期。它无疑是尼西亚会议以前文献遗存中最纯正、最珍贵的作品之一，完全可以与《坡旅甲殉道记》媲美，甚至更胜一筹，因为它没有迷信的遗物崇拜。²³⁰

(7.) 最后，我们还必须提到爱任纽另外四篇希腊文残篇；普法夫 (Pfaff) 于1715年在都灵 (Turin) 发现，并首次刊行了它们。一些罗马天主教神学家曾质疑其真实性，主要是出于教义上的原因。²³¹第一篇论真正的知识，²³²这种知识不在于解决精细的问题，而在于神圣的智慧和效法基督；第二篇论圣餐；²³³第三篇针对复活节争论，论在次要分歧上彼此宽容的责任；²³⁴第四篇论道成肉身的目的，指出其目的在于除净罪恶，消灭一切的恶。²³⁵

§ 183. 希坡吕托斯 (Hippolytus)

(I.) 《圣希坡吕托斯主教及殉道者著作集，希腊文与拉丁文版》(S. Hippolyti episcopi et martyris Opera, Graece et Lat.)，J. 阿法布里修斯 (J. Afabricius) 编，汉堡 (Hamb.)，1716–18年，2卷，对开本；加兰迪 (Gallandi) 编本，收入《教父文库》(Biblioth. Patrum)，威尼斯 (Ven.)，1760年，第II卷；米涅 (Migne)：《希腊教父集》(Patr. Gr.)，第X卷，第583–982栏。P. 安特·德·拉加德 (P. Ant. de Lagarde)：《传为罗马的希坡吕托斯所作的全部希腊文著作》(Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece)，莱比锡与伦敦 (Lips. et Lond.)，1858年（216页）。拉加德也在他的《叙利亚文选集》(Analecta Syriaca，第79–91页) 及附录中，刊行了希坡吕托斯的一些叙利亚文与阿拉伯文残篇，莱比锡与伦敦，1858年。

教父文献中有关希坡吕托斯的记载。优西比乌 (Euseb.)：H. E.，VI. 20、22；普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) 的《殉道者颂歌》([ [TEMP] ]) 第11首；哲罗姆 (Hieron)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，第61章；佛提乌 (Photius)，Cod. 48、121。埃皮法尼乌仅略提希坡吕托斯（Haer. 31）。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 引用了若干段落，称他为“圣希坡吕托斯，主教及殉道者”（Haer. Fab. III. 1及Dial. I、II、III）。参见法布里修斯 (Fabricius)，Hippol. I. VIII.–XX。

圣希坡吕托斯主教及殉道者 (S. Hippolyti EpIs. et Mart.)：《驳斥一切异端十卷残存部分》(Refutationis omnium haeresium librorum decem quae supersunt)，邓克尔 (Duncker) 与施奈德温 (Schneidewin) 编。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1859年。初版以俄利根 (Origen) 之名刊行：Ὠριγένους φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος^*。俄利根：《哲学论，或驳斥一切异端，据巴黎抄本首次刊行》(Philosophumena, sive omnium haeresium refutatio. E codice Parisino ninc primum ed.)，埃马纽埃尔·米勒 (Emmanuel Miller) 编。牛津 (Oxon.，克拉伦登出版社)，1851年。另有克吕斯神父 (Abbe Cruice) 编本，巴黎 (Par.)，1860年。J. H. 麦克马洪 (J. H. Macmahon) 的英译本收入《尼西亚前基督教文库》(Ante-Nicene Christian Library)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1868年。

这部重要著作的一份14世纪抄本，于1842年由希腊学者米诺伊德斯·米纳斯 (Minoïdes Mynas) 在希腊阿索斯山 (Mt. Athos) 发现，后存放于巴黎国家图书馆。米纳斯是由路易·菲利普 (Louis Philippe) 在位时的公共教育大臣维尔曼 (M. Villemain) 派往希腊搜寻抄本的。第一卷早已见于俄利根的著作中，但于埃 (Huet) 与德拉吕 (De la Rue) 已有充分理由否认它出自俄利根之手；第二、三卷及第四卷的开头仍然缺佚；第十卷则缺少结尾。如今，这部著作已一致被认定为希坡吕托斯所作。

《圣希坡吕托斯教规，阿拉伯文，据罗马抄本刊行，附拉丁译文》(Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice e codicibus Romanis cum versione Latina)，D. B. 德·哈内贝格 (D. B. de Haneberg) 编。慕尼黑 (Monach.)，1870年。这些教规极为严苛，但“尚无确凿证据可以确定其作者”。

O. 巴登黑韦尔 (O. Bardenhewer)：《罗马的圣希坡吕托斯〈但以理书注释〉》(Des heil. Hippolyt von Rom. Commentar zum B. Daniel)。布赖斯高的弗赖堡 (Freib. i. B.)，1877年，

(II.) E. F. 基梅尔 (E. F. Kimmel)：《希坡吕托斯的生平与著作》(De Hippolyti vita et scriptis)。耶拿 (Jen.)，1839年。默勒 (Möhler)：《教父学》(Patrol.)，第584页及后。二者都仅依据旧有的混乱史料。

自《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 发现以来，以下关于希坡吕托斯的书籍与论文相继问世，使人对他有了新的认识。

本生 (Bunsen)：《希坡吕托斯及其时代》(Hippolytus and his Age)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1852年，4卷（德文版2卷，莱比锡，1855年）；第2版增入许多无关而杂糅的材料（书名改为《基督教与人类》〔Christianity and Mankind〕）。伦敦，1854年，7卷。

雅各比 (Jacobi) 在《德国杂志》(Deutsche Zeitschrift) 上的文章，柏林 (Berl.)，1851及1853年；以及赫尔措格 (Herzog)《百科全书》(Encykl.) 第VI卷第131页及后（1856年）和赫尔措格第2版 (Herzog²) 第VI卷第139–149页中的“希坡吕托斯”条。

鲍尔 (Baur)，载《神学年鉴》(Theol. Jahrb.)，图宾根 (Tüb.)，1853年。福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 与里奇尔 (Ritschl)，同刊 (ibid.)，1854年，

吉泽勒 (Gieseler)，载1853年《研究与评论》(Stud. u. Krit.)。

德林格 (Döllinger，罗马天主教徒，但自1870年起为旧天主教徒)：《希坡吕托斯与卡利斯图斯，或第三世纪上半叶的罗马教会》(Hippolytus und Callistus, oder die röm. Kirche in der ersten Haelfte des dritten Jahrh)。雷根斯堡 (Regensburg)，1853年。阿尔弗雷德·普卢默 (Alfred Plummer) 英译，爱丁堡，1876年（360页）。这是论此题最为博学的著作。它为卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 及罗马教座辩护，反对被视为第一位敌对教皇的希坡吕托斯。

Chr. 华兹华斯 (Chr. Wordsworth，圣公会)：《圣希坡吕托斯与第三世纪前期的罗马教会》(St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century)。伦敦，1853年。第2版大为扩充，1880年。附第九、十卷的希腊文本及英译。这是与德林格相对的一部著作，为希坡吕托斯辩护，反对卡利斯图斯及教皇制。

克吕斯神父 (L’abbé Cruice，巴黎荣誉法政牧师〔chanoine hon. de Paris〕)：《〈哲学论〉新历史文献研究》(Etudes sur de nouv. doc. hist. des Philosophumena)。巴黎，1853年（380页）。

W. 埃尔夫·泰勒 (W. Elfe Tayler)：《希坡吕托斯与第三世纪的基督教会》(Hippol. and the Christ. Ch. of the third century)。伦敦，1853年（245页）。

勒诺尔芒 (Le Normant)：《关于俄利根〈哲学论〉的争论》(Controverse sur les Philos. d’ Orig)。巴黎，1853年。载《通讯者》(Le Correspondant)，第31卷，第509–550页。主张作者为俄利根。

G. 福尔克马尔 (G. Volkmar)：《希坡吕托斯与同时代的罗马人》(Hippolytus und die röm. Zeitgenossen)。苏黎世 (Zürich)，1855年（174页）。

卡斯帕里 (Caspari)：《洗礼信经与信仰准则史料》(Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel)。克里斯蒂安尼亚 (Christiania)，第III卷，第349页及后及第374–409页。论希坡吕托斯的著作。

利普修斯 (Lipsius)：《最早异端史的史料》(Quellen der ältesten Ketzergesch)。莱比锡，1875年。

德斯梅特 (De Smedt，罗马天主教徒)：《论〈哲学论〉的作者》(De Auctore Philosophumenon)。载《论文选集》(Dissertationes Selectae)。根特 (Ghent)，1876年。

G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon)：“罗马的希坡吕托斯”(Hipp. Romanus)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，第III卷，第85–105页（甚佳）。

I. 希坡吕托斯的生平。这位著名人物有过三重生命：第三世纪的真实生命，是他所处时代诸教皇的反对者；中世纪的虚构生命，是一位受封的圣徒；而在十九世纪，他那久已散佚的反异端著作被发现之后，他又有了文献中的生命。他无疑是当时最博学、最卓越的学者和神学家之一。罗马教会将他列入圣徒和殉道者之中，殊不料他竟会在十九世纪出现，成为控告她的人。然而，古人关于他的记载极为含混混乱。可以确定的是，他受过完备的希腊教育，并且正如佛提乌 (Photius) 所保存的一篇残篇中他自己所说的，他曾（在里昂或罗马）聆听爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的讲论。他的公开活动处于第二世纪末和第三世纪最初三十年间（约198至236年）；他属于西方教会，尽管他可能与爱任纽一样，出身于东方。无论如何，他所有的书都是用希腊文写成的。²³⁶

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 是最早提到他的人，只笼统地称他为主教，说他与俄利根及波斯特拉的贝里尔 (Beryl of Bostra) 同时代；他显然不知道希坡吕托斯在何处任主教，但列出了自己见过的著作目录（可能是在凯撒利亚图书馆中见到的）。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所列的著作目录更为完整，却也未提供有关其主教座的更确切消息，尽管他十分熟悉罗马及教皇达马苏 (Damasus)。他称希坡吕托斯为殉道者，并将他与罗马元老阿波罗尼乌斯 (Apollonius) 并提。一份古老的教皇名录《利贝里乌斯名录》(Catalogus Liberianus，约公元354年) 记载，一位名叫希坡吕托斯的“长老”约于235年与罗马主教蓬提安努斯 (Pontianus) 一同被放逐到气候有害健康的撒丁岛 (Sardinia)；二人的遗体于同一天（8月13日）安葬，蓬提安努斯葬在卡利斯图斯墓园，希坡吕托斯葬在提布尔提纳大道 (Via Tiburtina) 旁（1551年在此发现了他的雕像）。蓬提安努斯的遗体由教皇法比安努斯 (Fabianus) 于约236或237年迁回。由此记载，我们可以推断希坡吕托斯死于撒丁岛的矿场，因而像所有死在狱中的认信者一样，被列为殉道者。不过，他也可能曾经返回，后来在别处殉道。我们所有的下一项记载，出自第五世纪初写作的西班牙诗人普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius)。他用诗意的描写，将希坡吕托斯说成一位罗马长老（这一点与《利贝里乌斯名录》相合），属于诺瓦atian派 (Novatian party)²³⁷（然而该派是在希坡吕托斯死后数年才出现的），但他临死时为这次分裂悔恨，劝告众多追随者回到大公教会的怀抱；随后，人们以残酷的方式影射他的名字以及神话中忒修斯 (Theseus) 的儿子希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)，将他的双脚缚在一队野马身上，拖过树桩乱石，直至死去。诗人将这番临终的话放在他口中：“这些骏马将我的肢体拖去；基督啊，求你将我的灵魂牵引到你自己那里。”²³⁸他把殉道地点置于奥斯提亚 (Ostia) 或波尔图斯 (Portus)，罗马城长官当时恰在那里，因他承认基督徒身份而判他死刑。普鲁登修斯也曾在罗马见到地下墓室礼拜堂，以及一幅表现其殉道的图画（原先也许是描绘神话中的希波吕托斯）。²³⁹但早期罗马教堂名录中没有这样一座教堂，因此它可能就是著名的受铁箅炙烤而殉道的圣劳伦斯 (St. Lawrence) 教堂，毗邻希坡吕托斯之墓。尽管关于诺瓦atian分裂的年代有误，而且按照罗马法律与习俗，这种可怖的死法极不可能发生，这个传说仍含有一项重要的真实成分，就是希坡吕托斯处于分裂者的地位，这与《哲学论》相符；此外，他与波尔图斯的关系也可能属实。大公教会后来的传统（自第七世纪中叶起）将他说成罗马港 (Portus Romanus，今波尔图〔Porto〕) 的主教；该地位于台伯河 (Tiber) 北侧河口，与奥斯提亚相对，距罗马约十五英里。²⁴⁰希腊作者没有严格区分城与周围地区，通常称他为罗马主教。²⁴¹

这些含混而矛盾的传统，归结起来就是说：希坡吕托斯是第三世纪前期罗马或附近地区一位卓越的长老或主教，写过许多博学的著作，并在撒丁岛或奥斯提亚殉道。事情的认识原本止于此，直到十六世纪的一次发现，才为这位神秘人物带来了新的亮光。

1551年，在罗马提布尔提纳大道（通往蒂沃利〔Tivoli〕的道路）旁、圣劳伦斯大教堂附近，出土了一尊残损严重的大理石雕像，现藏于拉特兰博物馆 (Lateran Museum)。普鲁登修斯确实没有提到这尊雕像；它起初也许完全另有用途，可能是为某位罗马元老所作；但无论如何，它十分古老，很可能出自第三世纪中叶。²⁴²雕像表现一位可敬的人，身穿希腊式披衣和罗马托加袍，坐在主教座椅上。座椅背面以安色尔体字母镌刻着希坡吕托斯的逾越节周期，即复活节日期表，共七个十六年周期，始于亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus) 元年（222年）；此外还有一份著作目录，推想是雕像所代表的人所作。其中列有一部《论万有》(On the All)，《哲学论》第十卷也提到它，称其为该书作者自己的著作。²⁴³这便为确定那部重要著作的作者提供了钥匙。

更为重要的是，近来发现了他的一部著作，并于1851年出版；这无疑也是他全部著作中最有价值的一部，即《哲学论》(Philosophumena)，又名《驳斥一切异端》(Refutation of all Heresies)。如今几乎已公认，此书并非出自从未当过主教的俄利根，也不是出自反孟他努主义、反千禧年论的长老该犹 (Caius)，而是出自希坡吕托斯；因为，除其他理由外，作者自己曾提到《论万有》是他本人的著作，这与希坡吕托斯雕像上的记载一致，而且教父们也明言，希坡吕托斯写过一部《驳斥一切异端》(Adversus omnes Haereses)。²⁴⁴此书的全部内容，也与古代有关他在教会中所处地位的零星记载相符；同时又使这一地位显得更加清楚，让我们更能理解那些记载。²⁴⁵《哲学论》的作者显然是第三世纪初罗马或其附近地区最显要的教牧人员之一；他很可能是位主教，因为他将自己列在使徒的继承者和教会教义的守护者之中。他积极参与当时所有教义与礼仪上的争论，却严厉反对罗马主教泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus，202–218年) 与卡利斯图斯（218–223年），因为他们倾向圣父受苦说 (Patripassianism)，而且悔罪纪律松弛。尤其是后者，先前的生活方式曾公然引起反感，他对其攻击毫不留情，也不无激愤。因此，他即使不完全是一位造成分裂的敌对教皇（如德林格所认为的），至少也是一个不满而分裂的派别的领袖；这个派别在教义上正统，在纪律上严苛，因而与先前的孟他努派 (Montanists) 和后来诺瓦atian的分裂极为接近。正因如此，更值得注意的是，关于这场运动后来的进程，除了一项较晚而不可靠的传统外，我们竟没有任何记载；这传统说，希坡吕托斯最终回到了大公教会的怀抱，并以殉道赎了他分裂的罪，地点或在撒丁岛的矿场，或在罗马附近（公元235年，更确切地说是236年，在施行逼迫的色雷斯人马克西米努斯〔Maximinus the Thracian〕皇帝统治之下）。

他的著作。希坡吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 是第三世纪罗马教会最博学的神学家，也是著述最多的作家；事实上，他是该教会第一位大学者，尽管他与其师爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 一样，只用希腊文写作。这一点，加上他对当时罗马主教所持的论战态度，说明了为什么他的著作很早便从该教会的记忆中消失。他与其说是一位富于原创力的作者，不如说是一位博学而娴熟的编纂者。在《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 的哲学部分，他大量逐字借用塞克斯都·恩披里柯 (Sextus Empiricus) 的文字，却不注明出处；在神学部分，则借用爱任纽的著作。在教义上，他大体与爱任纽一致，甚至连千禧年论也不例外，但在辨识力、深度和节制方面却不及后者。他排斥哲学，视之为一切异端的根源，其激烈程度几乎不亚于德尔图良 (Tertullian)；然而，他又用哲学来确立自己的见解。在三位一体的问题上，他抨击神格唯一论 (Monarchianism)，热心倡导位格论 (hypostasian theory)，以致招来二神论的指控。他的纪律原则严苛而禁欲。在这一点上，他也与德尔图良相近，尽管他把孟他努派 (Montanists) 与十四日派 (Quartodecimanians) 一样列在异端之中，不过只作了简短的记述。他的文风雄健，却欠严谨，且有浮夸之处。卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 称希坡吕托斯为“罗马的俄利根”。若论学识与独立性，这话确实不错；但俄利根更有天才，也更有节制。

希坡吕托斯的主要著作是《哲学论》(Philosophumena)，又名《驳斥一切异端》(Refutation of all Heresies)。在尼西亚会议前教会的论战著作中，此书的启发性和重要性仅次于爱任纽的论著；它不仅为古代异端和教会教义的发展，也为哲学史以及第三世纪初罗马教会的状况，提供了许多新的亮光。此外，无论是作者本人的陈述，还是他引用早得多的诺斯替派巴西利德 (Basilides) 的文字，都为《约翰福音》的真实性提供了宝贵的见证；巴西利德生活于约翰晚年的同时代（约公元125年）。此书写于卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 死后数年，即223至235年之间。全书共十卷，第一卷概述异教哲学，作者视之为一切异端的根源；《哲学论》这一书名即由此而来，它适用于前四卷，却不适用于后六卷。第一卷不见于阿索斯 (Athos) 抄本，但从前已为人所知，并被收入俄利根的著作中。现已失佚的第二、第三卷，可能论述异教的秘仪以及数学和占星学理论。第四卷同样论及异教的占星术和巫术；这些事物必曾产生很大影响，在罗马尤其如此。第五卷，作者才进入本题，驳斥从使徒时代直到他自己时代的一切异端。他总共论及三十二种异端，不过其中大多数只是诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 和伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 的不同支派。他只是根据现已失传的著作陈述异端的见解，不加入自己的思考，并将这些见解归源于希腊哲学、神秘主义和巫术，以为只要追溯到这些异教根源，就已足以驳倒它们。第九卷在驳斥诺厄图派 (Noëtians) 和卡利斯图派 (Callistians) 的教义时，对罗马教会发生的事件作出了引人注目的披露。他将教皇泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 描绘成一个软弱无知、支持并助长圣父受苦说异端的人；又将其继任者卡利斯图斯描绘成一个精明狡诈、善于经营的人物：他曾是奴隶，后来成为不诚实的钱庄主，继而破产，沦为罪犯，却设法博得泽菲里努斯的欢心，并在其死后如愿以偿地登上觊觎已久的教皇宝座，传授异端，又因对犯罪者极度宽纵而败坏了纪律。在这里，作者显出激烈的党派立场，使用他的记载时必须谨慎。

狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 曾使用过第十卷，其中包含简短的复述，以及作者本人的信仰告白，借此从正面驳斥异端。以下是其中论及基督的最重要部分：

“父在这末后的日子差遣这道 (Logos) 出来，不再借着先知说话，也不愿人只从隐晦的宣讲中揣测他，而是命他亲自显现，使世人看见他便敬畏他；他不再借先知的身份颁布命令，也不再借天使震慑人的心灵，而是由那曾经说话的亲自临在。

“我们知道，他从童贞女领受了身体，以新的创造重塑了旧人，一生经历各个年龄，为要成为各个年龄的准则，并借着亲自临在，将他自己的人性显为众人的榜样，²⁴⁶从而使人确信：上帝没有造出任何邪恶之物，人具有自由意志，自身拥有愿意或不愿意的能力，两者都能作出。我们知道，他曾是一个与我们具有相同性情的人。

“因为，倘若他与我们没有相同的性情，他劝我们效法我们的夫子，便是徒然。倘若那人与我们具有不同的性情，为什么他还把同样的责任加在软弱的我身上呢？他又怎能是良善公义的呢？但为了显明他与我们相同，他经历劳苦，甘愿忍受饥渴，在睡眠中安歇，不拒绝受难，存心顺服以至于死，并显明他的复活；他在这一切事上，将自己的人性分别为圣，作为初熟的果子，好叫你在受苦时不至绝望，承认自己是一个与他具有相同性情的人，并等候你所给他的显现。²⁴⁷

“希腊人和蛮族人啊，迦勒底人 (Chaldaeans) 和亚述人 (Assyrians)、埃及人和非洲人、印度人和埃塞俄比亚人 (Ethiopians)、凯尔特人 (Celts)，以及善战的拉丁人 (Latins)，还有欧洲、亚洲和非洲的一切居民啊，这就是关于神的真实教义。我是那爱人之道的门徒，自己也是一个爱人的人 ( )，如今劝告你们。你们来，从我们这里学习谁是真神，以及他井然有序的创造之工是什么；不要听信矫饰言辞中的诡辩，也不要听信剽窃的异端者虚妄的自夸，却要留心那不加修饰的真理所具有的庄严质朴。借着这知识，你们就能逃脱那将要临到的火焰审判之咒诅，以及阴狱 (Tartarus) 那幽暗无光、永不蒙道之声音照亮的景象……

所以，人们啊，不要继续与你们的仇敌相持，也不要迟疑，务要回转。因为基督是在万有之上的神 ( ，参《罗马书》9:5)，他吩咐人［在洗礼中］洗去罪恶，²⁴⁸使旧人重生；他从起初便称人为自己的形像，借这象征向你显明他的爱。你若遵行他的圣命，在良善上效法那位良善者，就必因蒙他尊荣而变得像他。因为上帝需要你、渴望你，他已使你成为神圣，为要彰显他的荣耀。”

希坡吕托斯还写了大量其他著作，涉及释经、年代学、论战和讲道，全都用希腊文写成；这些著作大多已经失传，尽管仍有相当多的残篇留存。他最早为若干圣经书卷撰写了连贯而详尽的注释，如《创世六日》(Hexaëmeron，安布罗斯〔Ambrose〕曾加以使用)，以及《出埃及记》《诗篇》《箴言》《传道书》、大先知书（尤其是《但以理书》）、《撒迦利亚书》，还有《马太福音》《路加福音》和《启示录》的注释。在释经上，他与俄利根一样采用寓意法，这正合乎他那个时代的趣味。

他的论战著作中有一部《驳三十二种异端》(Against Thirty-two Heresies)，与《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 不同；佛提乌 (Photius) 称之为一本“小书”，²⁴⁹并说它是希坡吕托斯听爱任纽讲授内容的概要。这必是他早年青年时期所写的。此书从多西修 (Dositheus) 的异端开始，以诺厄图 (Noëtus) 的异端结束。²⁵⁰他现存的《驳诺厄图》(Against Noëtus) 一文预设前面还有其他部分，因此很可能就是这部概要的结尾。²⁵¹若非如此，那就必是一部专门反对神格唯一论异端的著作之结尾，²⁵²但并无记载提到这样一部著作。

《论宇宙》(On the Universe)²⁵³一书是针对柏拉图主义 (Platonism) 而作的。它认为万物均由土、气、火、水四种元素构成。人由全部四种元素构成，人的灵魂则由气构成。但此书最重要的部分，是对阴间 (Hades) 的描述：这是地下的一处居所，死者的灵魂留在其中，直到审判之日；义人在光明而幸福之地，称为亚伯拉罕的怀中；恶人则在黑暗而痛苦之地；两地之间有深渊隔开。入口由一位天使长守卫。到审判之日，义人的身体将更新复活，得着荣耀；恶人的身体则带着他们在世时的一切疾病复活，承受永远的刑罚。这一描述与殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、爱任纽和德尔图良的末世论大体一致。²⁵⁴

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和狄奥多勒提到一部名为《小迷宫》(The Little Labyrinth)²⁵⁵的匿名著作，说它针对亚特蒙 (Artemon) 的理性主义异端；有人将它归于希坡吕托斯，也有人归于该犹 (Caius)。但佛提乌所提、被列为该犹著作的《迷宫》(The Labyrinth)，则是另一部作品，实即《哲学论》第十卷；这一卷开头的话是：“异端的迷宫。”²⁵⁶

那篇已经失传、论述《恩赐》(Charismata)²⁵⁷的短论，可能是针对孟他努派关于先知预言仍在延续的主张而作。另有人认为，它是一部使徒法规汇编。

古迪乌斯 (Gudius) 几乎完整地重新发现了《论敌基督》(Antichrist)²⁵⁸一书；书中把敌基督描述为基督的全然赝品，将但以理所见的四国解释为巴比伦、玛代、希腊和罗马，又将《启示录》中兽的数目解释为，即异教罗马。这是爱任纽所提出的三种解释之一，不过他本人较倾向于 Teitan。

在一部《启示录》(Apocalypse) 注释中，²⁵⁹他对这个数目另作解释，即 Dantialos（可能因为敌基督将出自但支派）。第十二章的妇人是教会；她所披的日头是我们的主；月亮是施洗约翰；十二颗星是十二使徒；使她得以飞翔的两个翅膀是盼望和爱。哈米吉多顿 (Armageddon) 就是约沙法谷 (valley of Jehoshaphat)。五位王（17:13）是尼布甲尼撒、居鲁士、大利乌、亚历山大及其四位继承者；第六位是罗马帝国，第七位将是敌基督。在《但以理书》注释中，他将终局定于公元500年，即创世纪年 (A. M.) 6000年；其根据是，基督在创世后5500年显现，而在千禧年安息开始以前，第六个千年必须满了；创造之后上帝的安息，正是这千禧年安息的预表。这一见解，加上他与爱任纽的关系，以及他的异端目录并未列入千禧年论，使我们可以相当确定，他本人是一位千禧年论者，尽管他将千禧年推迟到基督之后第六世纪。²⁶⁰

我们以一段记载结束本节：1159年，教皇亚历山大三世 (Alexander III.) 曾到圣但尼 (St. Denis) 教堂的圣希坡吕托斯 (St. Hippolytus) 圣龛前瞻礼；希坡吕托斯的遗骨是在查理大帝 (Charlemagne) 时从罗马迁到这里的。²⁶¹“教皇走到一座小礼拜堂的门槛前，停下来问，里面安放的是谁的遗物。回答说：‘圣希坡吕托斯的。’这位无谬的权威答道：‘Non credo, non credo（我不信，我不信），圣希坡吕托斯的遗骨从未移出圣城。’然而，圣希坡吕托斯的枯骨，对于泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 和卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 的属灵后裔，显然也像这位古代主教生前的口舌和笔墨对于这两位圣人一样，毫无敬意；他大发雷霆，使自己的骨头在圣骨匣里震响，声如雷鸣。倘若仅仅震响还不够，他会闹到何等地步，我们不敢猜想。但教皇跪倒在地，惊恐地喊道：‘我信了，我的主希坡吕托斯啊，我信了，请安静吧。’他又在那里建了一座大理石祭坛，以安抚这位不安的圣人。”

附注

有关希坡吕托斯著作的问题，尤其是他在教会中的身份，尚未得到充分解决。我们再补充几点考察。

I. 希坡吕托斯雕像背面的书目，法布里修斯 (Fabricius)、凯夫 (Cave)、德林格 (Döllinger)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 都曾讨论过。参见法布里修斯，I. 36–38，所载雕像及两侧铭文的三幅图，以及华兹华斯著作卷首插图中的书名摹本。铭文已有残损，现将原文连同方括号内推补的文字及译文列于下：

《驳犹太人》（[πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδα]ίους^*）。

《驳犹太人》。

《论童贞》（[Περὶ παρθε]νίας^*）。

《论童贞》。

[或许作：εἰς παροιμίας^*]

[或作：《箴言注释》。]

《诗篇注释》（[εἰς τοὺς ψ]αλμούς^*.）

《诗篇注释》。

《论交鬼的妇人》（[εἰς τὴν ἐ]γγαστρίμυθον^*.）

《论腹语者》[隐多珥的女巫？]

为约翰所作之书辩护（[ἀπολογία] ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην^*）

为《约翰福音》辩护，

福音与启示录（εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως^*.）

及《启示录》。

《论恩赐》（Περὶ χαρισμάτων^*）

《论属灵的恩赐》。

《使徒传统》（ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις^*）

《使徒传统》。

Χρονικῶν^* [即Βίβλος^*]

《编年史》[一书]

驳希腊人（πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*），

《驳希腊人》，

并驳柏拉图（καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα^*,）

及《驳柏拉图》，

或又名《论宇宙》（ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς^*）

或又名《论万有》。

《致塞维里娜的劝勉书》（προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Σεβήρειναν^*）

《致塞韦里娜的劝勉辞》。[或为皇后塞韦拉 (Severa)，即埃拉伽巴路斯 (Elogabalus) 的第二位妻子]

《逾越节日期的推算》（ἀπόδε[ι]ξις χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα^*）

《逾越节日期的论证》

依照表中所列（κατὰ [τὰ] ἐν τῷ πίνακι^*.）

依照表中次序。

《论全部圣经的颂歌》（ᾠδαί [ε]ἰς πάσας τὰς γραφὰς^*.）

《全本圣经颂歌》。

《论上帝与肉身复活》（Περὶ θ[εο]ῦ, καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως^*.）

《论上帝与肉身的复活》。

《论善与恶的起源》（Περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν^*）

《论善与恶的起源》。

关于这份书目，参较法布里修斯，I. 79–89；华兹华斯，第233–240页；福尔克马尔，第2页及后。

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 也列有希坡吕托斯的著作目录，其中有些相同，有些不同；在后者之中，两人都提到一部《驳异端》(Against Heresies)，很可能就是《哲学论》(Philosophumena)。关于希坡吕托斯的《逾越节历表》(Canon Pasch.)，参见法布里修斯，I. 137–140，所载各表。

希坡吕托斯是主教吗？是哪里的主教？

希坡吕托斯没有自称主教，也没有自称“罗马主教”，却以主教权威自居，并在第一卷序言中称自己是“使徒的继承者，与他们同享恩典、最高祭司职分 (ἀρχιεράτεια^*) 和教导职分，并列身于教会守护者之中”。这样的措辞，几乎不可能用于一位普通长老。他还曾行使革除教籍的权力，惩处教皇卡利斯图斯的某些追随者。但他的主教辖区究竟在哪里？这至今仍是一个争议问题。

(1.) 他是罗马海港波尔图斯 (Portus) 的主教。这是罗马教会自第七世纪以来的传统见解，支持者有鲁杰里 (Ruggieri，《论圣希坡吕托斯主教殉道者的波尔图斯主教座》[De Portuensi S. Hippolyti, episcopi et martyris, Sede]，Rom. 1771)、西蒙·德·马吉斯特里斯 (Simon de Magistris，《台伯河口殉道者行传》[Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina] 等，Rom. 1795)、本生男爵 (Baron Bunsen)、米尔曼座堂主任牧师 (Dean Milman)，尤其是华兹华斯主教。然而，最早的记载却称他为罗马的“长老”。本生将两种见解结合起来，所依据的是一个未经证明的假设：早在那个时期，称为 cardinales episcopi（枢机主教）的罗马近郊主教，同时也是罗马长老团的成员。与此相反，德林格博士坚持认为，波尔图斯在313或314年以前并无主教；希坡吕托斯自认是合法的罗马主教；他不可能既是罗马长老团成员，又是波尔图斯主教。但他的主要论据是史料的沉默，而这一点同样有力地反对他自己的理论。诚然，见于记载的第一位波尔图斯主教，出现于314年的阿尔勒会议 (Synod of Arles)，他在那里署名为 Gregorius episcopus de loco qui est in Portu Romano（罗马港所在地的主教格列高利）。奥斯提亚 (Ostia) 的主教座更为古老，其任职者（据圣奥古斯丁说）一向享有祝圣罗马主教的特权。但奥斯提亚和波尔图斯仅由台伯河口的一座岛屿隔开，起初完全可能同属一个教区。普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) 将希坡吕托斯殉道的地点定在奥斯提亚或波尔图斯（他的诗中两者都有提及）。此外，波尔图斯的重要性，也超过德林格所愿承认的程度。这座城市因海港而得名波尔图斯（又称 Portus Ostien Portus Urbis, Portus Romae）；该港由克劳狄乌斯皇帝 (Claudius) 兴建（也可能是奥古斯都，故称 Portus Augusti），由尼禄扩建，并由图拉真 (Trajan) 改善（故称 Portus Trajani）。伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 赴罗马时曾在此登陆（《伊格那丢殉道记》[Martyr. Ign.]，第6章：τοῦ καλουμένου Πόρτου^*），并在那里与基督徒弟兄相会。君士坦丁 (Constantine) 曾在其四周修建坚固的城墙和塔楼。奥斯提亚作为商业中心和海军基地，或许重要得多（参见史密斯 [Smith]，《希腊罗马地理辞典》[Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr.]，第II卷，第501–504页）；但德·罗西骑士 (Cavalier de Rossi) 在《考古公报》(Bulletino di Archeol.)，1866年，第37页（转引自华兹华斯，第2版，第264页），依据13则铭文证明，“波尔图斯的地点与名称，在原始[？]教会的记载中颇负盛名”，并且“其名称被记述的次数，比奥斯提亚更为频繁”。波尔图斯与罗马关系密切，很容易解释为何希坡吕托斯住在罗马，又被称为罗马主教。后来，罗马附近的七位近郊主教成为教皇的属区主教，并为他举行祝圣礼。最后，大都会的海港吸引着来自各国、操各种语言的外来者，因此，称希坡吕托斯为“万民的主教”(ἐπίσκοπος ἐθνῶν^*) 也未尝不合宜。由此我们断定，波尔图斯假说虽无法证实，却并非不可能。

(2.) 他是阿拉伯的罗马港 (Portus Romanus)，即今日红海边亚丁 (Aden) 的主教。这是斯蒂芬·勒莫因 (Stephen Le Moyne，1685年) 的意见，为凯夫、蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 和巴斯纳日 (Basnage) 所采纳，但如今已被普遍摒弃，视为毫无根据的臆测；它源于对优西比乌第VI卷第20章的误解，那里不过偶然将希坡吕托斯与阿拉伯波斯特拉 (Bostra) 主教贝里鲁斯 (Beryllus) 并列提及。没有任何地方提到亚丁 (Adan) 是主教座所在地；而我们这位希坡吕托斯属于西方，尽管他可能像爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 一样，原籍东方。

(3.) 罗马。希坡吕托斯竟是第一位敌对教皇，并自称为合法的罗马主教。这是德林格从《哲学论》引申出来的理论，他以广博的学识和敏锐的才智为之辩护。《哲学论》的作者无疑住在罗马，自居于主教尊位，从未承认卡利斯图斯为主教，只把他视为一个异端学派 (διδασκαλεῖον^*) 或宗派的首领，称其信徒为“卡利斯图斯派”，并曾将其中一些人革除教籍；但他承认，卡利斯图斯曾觊觎主教宝座，并在泽菲里努斯死后“自以为已经得到”他野心所追求的目标；他的学派占了多数，并自称为大公教会。卡利斯图斯则因希坡吕托斯主张逻各斯 (Logos) 具有独立位格，指控他犯了二神论的异端（这一指控深深刺痛了他），而且很可能进而将他革除教籍。这一切都指向公开的分裂。这也可以解释，为什么希坡吕托斯在罗马仅被承认为长老，在东方却以主教、甚至罗马主教的身份广为人知。德林格博士假定，这场分裂一直延续到卡利斯图斯的继任者庞提亚努斯 (Pontianus) 任教皇时，并导致这两位相争的主教于235年被放逐到瘴疠之岛撒丁 (Sardinia)，最终因两人辞职并和解而告结束；因此，他们的遗骨被运回罗马，并于同一天隆重安葬。他们死于流放，被视为等同于殉道。克里斯蒂安尼亚 (Christiania) 的卡斯帕里博士 (Dr. Caspari) 对希坡吕托斯的著作多有阐明，也相信希坡吕托斯与卡利斯图斯之间的纠纷，导致了公开分裂和相互革除教籍（前引书，III. 330）。兰根 (Langen，《罗马教会史》[Gesch. der röm. Kirche]，Bonn. 1881，第229页) 倾向于接受德林格的结论，认为它至少是可能的。

这一理论貌似可信，《哲学论》几乎迫使我们接受它；但在这部论战著作之外，它没有任何坚实的支持。诺瓦提安 (Novatianus) 于希坡吕托斯死后十五年出现，以其分裂震动了整个教会（251年），尽管他作为学者和作家的声望远不及希坡吕托斯；而在他以前，历史对敌对教皇的存在却全然缄默。一场贯穿三位教皇任期的分裂（因为希坡吕托斯既反对泽菲里努斯，也反对卡利斯图斯），不可能隐而不彰，又如此迅速地被遗忘，尤其不可能被罗马遗忘，因为罗马对于加诸圣彼得宝座的伤害，记忆长久，并将反抗权威视为最大的罪。在任何希腊或罗马的教皇及敌对教皇名单中，都找不到希坡吕托斯的名字，而卡利斯图斯的名字却见于所有名单。甚至哲罗姆，约从350至372年间曾在罗马居住二十余年，后来又住了四年，并与教皇达马苏斯 (Damasus) 过从甚密，虽然知道希坡吕托斯的某些著作，却对他的主教座一无所知。罗马竟会将一位敌对教皇封为圣人和殉道者，似乎令人难以置信。相比之下，认为遥远东方的神学家弄错了，就容易理解得多。德林格为“罗马主教”这一称号所举出的最早权威，是约公元582年的君士坦丁堡长老欧斯特拉提乌斯 (Eustratius，见第84页)；这一见证并不比称希坡吕托斯为波尔图斯主教的记载早多少，从史料考证的角度看，也没有更高的价值。

(4.) 萨蒙博士 (Dr. Salmon) 对德林格假说作了一项修正，假定希坡吕托斯是罗马一个讲希腊语会众的某种独立主教。他由此解释了那个费解的称谓 ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος^*；佛提乌 (Photius) 用它称呼该犹 (Caius)，但它很可能属于希坡吕托斯。然而，历史并不知道罗马城曾有两位独立而合法的主教。此外，仍有一个难题：希坡吕托斯虽曾公开反抗，后来竟在教皇教会中获得如此崇高的尊荣。我们只能提出以下几点，作为部分的解答：第一，他用希腊文写作，而希腊文后来在罗马消失了，以致他的著作不再为人所知；第二，除了那些攻击之外，他也像造成分裂的德尔图良 (Tertullian) 一样，以学识以及对正统信仰和教会虔敬的捍卫，为教会作出了卓越的贡献；最后，人们相信（据普鲁登修斯的记述可知），他已经为自己的分裂悔改，并像居普良 (Cyprian) 一样，以殉道洗去了自己的罪。

然而，无论希坡吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 是罗马还是波尔图斯 (Portus) 的主教或长老，他都是反对教皇无谬说的一位无可辩驳的见证人；这种主张在第三世纪是全然不为人知的。难怪十九世纪的罗马天主教神学家否认他是这部令他们极为憎恶的著作的作者；例外只有德林格 (Döllinger)，他在撰写论希坡吕托斯的著作十七年后，因梵蒂冈颁布无谬谕令而脱离了罗马。克吕斯神父 (Abbé Cruice) 将这部著作归于该犹 (Caius) 或德尔图良，耶稣会士阿尔梅利尼 (Armellini) 将它归于诺瓦提安 (Novatian)，德罗西 (de Rossi，1866年) 则迟疑地将它归于德尔图良；然而，德尔图良并不住在罗马，而是住在迦太基 (Carthage)。纽曼枢机 (Cardinal Newman) 宣称，像圣希坡吕托斯这样备受殊荣的人，竟会写出“那篇恶毒诽谤与他同时代的教皇的文字”，这是“简直不可思议的”；那位作者竟毫不顾忌，“直言不讳地称教皇泽菲里努斯为软弱而贪赃的蠢人，称教皇卡利斯图斯为亵渎圣物的骗子、声名狼藉的罪犯，以及在宗座上 (ex cathedra) 的异端首领。”（《神学与教会论集》[Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical]，1874年，第222页；转引自普卢默 [Plummer]，第xiv、340页。）但他没有提出解决办法，也不可能提出。以教条对抗 (versus) 历史，正如教皇颁谕诅咒彗星一样徒劳。况且，希坡吕托斯，或不论写下那篇“恶毒诽谤”的究竟是谁，在这一立场上并非孤立无援。尼西亚会议以前最杰出的教父，恰恰也是奠定大公教会制度根基的人——爱任纽、德尔图良和居普良（姑且不提奥利金，以及敌对教皇诺瓦提安）——都曾因不同的缘故抗议罗马。还有一个值得注意的事实：博学的德林格博士在1853年曾如此有力地为罗马教座辩护，反驳希坡吕托斯的指控，到了1870年，却采取了与希坡吕托斯颇为相似的立场，反对 p 的错误

§ 184. 罗马的该犹

优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，II. 25；III. 28、31；VI. 20。哲罗姆 (Hieron.)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，59。狄奥多勒 (Theodor.)：《异端故事汇编》(Fa b. Haer.)，II. 3；III. 2。佛提乌 (Photius)：《文库》(Biblioth. Cod.)，48。或许还可参见《坡旅甲殉道记》(Martyr. Polyc.)，第22章，其中提到一位该犹，说他是爱任纽的学生或朋友。

劳斯 (Routh)：《神圣遗篇》(Rel. S.)，II. 125–158（另参I. 397–403）。本森 (Bunsen)：《尼西亚会议前文献辑录》(Analecta Ante-Nicaena)，I. 409及下页。卡斯帕里 (Caspari)：《史料》(Quellen) 等，III. 330、349、374及后。哈纳克 (Harnack)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)《百科全书》，第2版²，III. 63及下页。萨蒙 (Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，I. 384–386。另参海尼兴 (Heinichen) 对优西比乌II. 25的注释（见评注卷III. 63–67），以及§ 183所列希坡吕托斯文献，尤其是德林格（第250及下页）与福尔克马尔 (Volkmar，第60–71页）。

在那些像爱任纽和希坡吕托斯一样、专用希腊文写作的西方神学家中，必须提到该犹；他活跃于第三世纪前四分之一、泽菲里努斯任主教的时期。我们仅从几篇希腊文残篇得知他是一位孟他努主义 (Montanism) 和千禧年说 (Chiliasm) 的反对者。他可能是罗马的一位长老。由他的名字，²⁶²以及他没有将《希伯来书》列入保罗书信这一事实，我们可以推断他是罗马人，或至少是西方人。优西比乌称他为罗马一位极有学问的教会人士或教会作家，²⁶³并四次引用他与孟他努派一支的领袖普罗克鲁斯 (Proclus，希腊文： ) 的辩论。²⁶⁴优西比乌从这篇辩论中保存了一则记载，说腓利和他四个作先知的女儿葬在弗吕家 (Phrygia) 的希拉波立 (Hierapolis)；同时还保存了一项重要见证，论及罗马教会的奠基者彼得和保罗在梵蒂冈山 (Vatican hill) 和奥斯提亚大道 (Ostian road) 上的纪念碑或胜利标记（希腊文：）。

关于该犹，确实可靠而又值得注意的事情，几乎尽于此了。哲罗姆在他的名人目录中，照例只是重述优西比乌的记载，尽管以他对罗马的了解，我们本可期待他提供一些额外的资料。佛提乌依据一部被认为是该犹所著的《论宇宙》(On the Universe) 手稿中的一条眉注，说他是“维克托 (Victor) 和泽菲里努斯任主教时期罗马教会的长老，并且被选为外邦人的主教（）”。他将该书以及《迷宫》(The Labyrinth) 都归于该犹，但语气犹疑。他的见证年代太晚，没有什么价值，而且是基于对优西比乌的误解，以及将该犹与希坡吕托斯混淆；近代批评学者也重复了这一错误。²⁶⁵两人在年代、居所、称号上有许多共同之处，以致有人将他们视为同一人（认为该犹不过是希坡吕托斯的名字，即 praenomen）。²⁶⁶但这一点无法证实；优西比乌清楚地区分了他们，而且希坡吕托斯并不反对千禧年说，对孟他努主义也只是温和地反对；该犹却曾著书反对克林妥 (Cerinthus) 的千禧年幻想。然而，他并未否认《启示录》出于约翰，这种说法是人们从优西比乌的记载中错误推断出来的；他所指的可能是那位异端者伪称的启示（）。他与希坡吕托斯无疑都赞同罗马教会的正典，即承认保罗的十三封书信（不包括《希伯来书》）和约翰的《启示录》。

自佛提乌以来，该犹便笼罩在一种虚构的著述光环之中，希坡吕托斯的几部作品被错误地归在他的名下，其中包括新近发现的《哲学论》(Philosophumena)。关于新约正典的穆拉托里残篇 (Muratorian fragment)，也被其发现者（穆拉托里 [Muratori]，1740年）及近代作家归于他。然而，这份残篇年代更早（公元170年），并且是用拉丁文写的，尽管原文或许是希腊文。据我们所知，这是罗马最古老的拉丁文教会文献，对正典史极为重要。²⁶⁷

§ 185. 亚历山大神学学派

J. G. 米夏埃利斯 (J. G. Michaelis)：《论亚历山大学派的最初起源、发展及主要教师》(De Scholae Alexandrinae prima origine, progressu, ac praecpuis doctoribus)。哈雷 (Hal.)，1739年。

H. E. Fr. 盖里克 (H. E. Fr. Guerike)：《论曾盛行于亚历山大的教理学校：历史与神学考论》(De Schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica commentatio historica et theologica)。哈雷 (Hal.)，1824及1825年。2部（第119页及456页）。第二部主要论述革利免和奥利金。

C. F. W. 哈塞尔巴赫 (C. F. W. Hasselbach)：《论曾盛行于亚历山大的教理学校》(De Schola, quae Alex. floruit, catech.)。斯德丁 (Stettin)，1826年。第1部（反对盖里克）；又有《论学生……或论慕道者的等级》(De discipulorum ... s. De Catechumenorum ordinibus)，同地，1839年。

J. 马特 (J. Matter)：《亚历山大学派史》(L’Histoire de l’ École d’Alexandrie)，第2版。巴黎 (Par.)，1840年。3卷。

J. 西蒙 (J. Simon)：《亚历山大学派史》(Histoire de I’ École d’Alexandrie)。巴黎 (Par.)，1845年。

E. 瓦舍罗 (E. Vacherot)：《亚历山大学派批判史》(Histoire critique de l’ École d’Alexandrie)。巴黎 (Par.)，1851年。3卷。

尼安德 (Neander)：I. 527–557（美国版）；吉泽勒 (Gieseler)：I. 208–210（美国版）。

里特尔 (Ritter)：《基督教哲学史》(Gesch. der christl. Philos.)，I. 421及后。

于伯韦格 (Ueberweg)：《哲学史》(History of Philosophy)，第I卷，第311–319页（英译本，1875年）。

雷德彭宁 (Redepenning)：《奥利金》(Origenes)，I. 57–83，以及载于赫尔佐格 (Herzog)《百科全书》第2版²的文章，I. 290–292。另参M. 尼古拉 (M. Nicolas) 论亚历山大的犹太学派及新柏拉图学派的两篇文章，载利希滕贝格尔 (Lichtenberger)《百科全书》(Encyclopédie)，I. 159–170。

C. H. 比格 (C. H. Bigg)：《亚历山大的基督教柏拉图主义者》(The Christian Platonists of Alexandria)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1886年。

亚历山大 (Alexandria) 由亚历山大大帝 (Alexander the Great) 于基督降生前三百二十二年建于尼罗河口，与亚洲和欧洲仅隔数小时航程；它是埃及的都会，是商业、希腊与犹太学术的繁盛中心，并拥有古代世界最大的图书馆，注定要成为基督教的几个大中心之一，与安提阿和罗马相抗衡。在那里，巴勒斯坦的宗教生活与希腊的理智文化交融，为第一个神学学派预备了道路；这一学派旨在从哲学上理解并维护启示的真理。据传统说，亚历山大教会由福音书作者圣马可创立；教会创立后不久，就在主教监督之下兴起了一所“教理学校” (Catechetical school)。²⁶⁸它最初仅为一个实际目的而设立，就是预备各阶层中甘愿受洗的异教徒和犹太人接受洗礼。但在这个斐洛 (Philo) 神学、诺斯替异端和新柏拉图哲学的故乡，它很快便自然而然地具有了学术性质，同时成为一种神学院，对许多主教和教会教师的教育，以及基督教学术的发展，都产生了强大影响。起初只有一位教师，后来有两位或更多，却没有固定薪俸，也没有专用校舍。较富裕的学生缴纳学费，但教师往往婉拒。教师在自己的住所授课，大体沿用古代哲学家的方式。

我们所知道的这所学校的第一位主管，是约公元180年的潘代努斯 (Pantaenus)，一位归信基督教的斯多葛派哲学家。他后来到印度从事宣教工作，留下了几部注释，但除了少数零星残篇以外，均已不存。²⁶⁹继他之后的是革利免，任职至公元202年；继革利免之后的是奥利金，任职至232年。奥利金使这所学校达到极盛，并在巴勒斯坦的凯撒利亚创办了一所类似的学校。此后，该校由奥利金的学生赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas，卒于248年) 和狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius，卒于265年) 主持，最后由双目失明却学识渊博的狄迪穆斯 (Didymus，卒于395年) 主持；直到第四世纪末，它在亚历山大教会的动荡与纷争中永久衰落。这些动荡与纷争最终为阿拉伯人的毁灭性征服（640年）预备了道路。这座城市本身也逐渐衰落，沦为一个村庄，开罗 (Cairo) 则取而代之（自969年起）。在本世纪，它在欧洲人的扶持下迅速复兴，再度成为重要的商业中心。

从这所教理学校中产生了一种独特的神学，其最博学、最富天才的代表是革利免和奥利金。这种神学，一方面是亚历山大犹太思想家斐洛的宗教哲学经过更新而获得的基督教形式；另一方面则是异端灵知 (Gnosis) 的大公教会对应形态，并对它作出正面的驳斥。异端灵知同样在亚历山大达到顶峰，只是早了半个世纪。亚历山大神学旨在调和基督教与哲学，或从主体方面来说，调和信仰 (pistis) 与知识 (gnosis)；但它是在圣经和教会教义的基础上寻求这种结合。因此，它的中心是神圣的逻各斯 (Logos)，视之为道成肉身前后一切理性与真理的总和。革利免从希腊哲学走向基督教信仰；奥利金则相反，由信仰引向思辨。前者是一位格言式的思想家，后者则是一位系统性的思想家。前者从各种体系中汲取观念，后者则更多循着柏拉图主义的路径。但两人都是基督教哲学家，也是教会内的灵知者。正如早在他们以前，斐洛曾在同一座城市将犹太教与希腊文化结合起来，如今他们也将希腊文化带入了基督教。诚然，第二世纪的护教者和论战者，早自“哲学家”游斯丁 (Justin) 起，就已经这样做了。但亚历山大学派的人更为博学，也更加自由地运用希腊哲学。他们不认为其中尽是谬误，而是从一方面视之为上帝的恩赐，是在理智领域引人归向基督的训蒙师傅，正如律法在道德与宗教领域所起的作用一样。革利免将哲学比作一棵野橄榄树，可以借着信仰得到改良；奥利金则在致神迹行者贵格利 (Gregory Thaumaturgus) 的一封书信残篇中，将它比作以色列人从埃及带出的珠宝：他们用这些珠宝装饰圣所，尽管也曾用它们铸成金牛犊。哲学不一定是真理的仇敌，而是可以、也应当成为真理的婢女，抵消对真理的攻击。他们将异教哲学中的真理成分，一部分归因于逻各斯在理性世界中隐秘的运行，一部分归因于异教哲学家对摩西和先知著作的了解。

对于诺斯替异端，他们也采取同样的态度。亚历山大学派并不一概加以谴责，而是承认其根本在于渴望更深的宗教知识，并力求从圣经本身提供健全的滋养，以满足这种渴望。用革利免的话来说，他们的格言是：“没有无知识的信仰，也没有无信仰的知识”；或者说：“你们若不信，就不能明白。”²⁷⁰信仰与知识具有同一实质，就是上帝救人的真理，启示于圣经之中，并由教会忠实地传承下来；两者只在形式上有所不同。知识是我们对信仰更深的根基及其内在一致性的自觉认识。然而，基督徒的知识也是恩典的恩赐，并以圣洁的生活为其条件。理想的基督教灵知者，不但完全认识上帝，也完全爱上帝。革利免将他描述为这样的人：“他研读圣经直到白头，持守使徒和教会的正统信仰，并严格按照福音生活。”

亚历山大神学富于理智，深邃而激动人心，蕴含着丰富而富有生机的思想萌芽，但又不免过分偏于唯心与唯灵，在释经上迷失于任意的寓意幻想。它在调和启示与哲学的努力中，像斐洛一样，吸收了许多外来的成分，尤其是带有柏拉图色彩的成分，并走入某些思辨观点；后来的时代虽然更为正统，却也心胸更狭隘、创造力更贫乏，将这些观点定为异端，而未能赏识这一学派对本时代及后世所作的不朽贡献。

§ 186. 亚历山大的革利免

(I.) 亚历山大的革利免：《希腊文及拉丁文全集》(Clementis Alex. Opera omnia Gr. et Lat.)，波特 (Potter，牛津主教) 编。牛津 (Oxon.)，1715年，2卷。1757年于威尼斯 (Venet.) 重印，2卷，对开本；又收入米涅 (Migne)《希腊教父集》(Patr. Gr.)，第VIII、IX卷，附有各种增补及 Nic. 勒努里 (Nic. Le Nourry) 的评注。关于革利免的抄本及版本，见法布里修斯 (Fabricius)：《希腊文献志》(Biblioth. Graeca)，哈勒斯 (Harles) 编，第VII卷，第109页及后。

其他版本由以下各人编订：维克托里努斯 (Victorinus，佛罗伦萨，1550年)；叙尔堡 (Sylburg，海德堡，1592年)；海因修斯 (Heinsius，希腊文与拉丁文，莱顿，1616年)；克洛茨 (Klotz，莱比锡，1831–34年，4卷，仅有希腊文，讹误甚多)；W. 丁多夫 (W. Dindorf，牛津，1868–69年，4卷)。

Wm. 威尔逊 (Wm. Wilson) 的英译本，收入克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第IV、V卷。爱丁堡，1867年。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Eusebius)：《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.)，V. 11；VI. 6、11、13。哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，38；佛提乌 (Photius)：《文库》(Biblioth.)，109–111。参见波特版第I卷卷首及米涅版第VIII卷第35–50页所收《古人论革利免的见证》(Testimonia Veterum de Cl.)。

(III.) 霍夫斯泰德·德赫鲁特 (Hofstede De Groot)：《论亚历山大的革利免》(Dissert. de Clem. Alex.)。格罗宁根 (Groning.)，1826年。A. F. 德内 (A. F. Daehne)：《论亚历山大革利免的灵知》(De γνώσει^* Clem Al.)。哈勒 (Hal.)，1831年。

F. R. 艾勒特 (F. R. Eylert)：《作为哲学家与诗人的亚历山大革利免》(Clem. v. Alex. als Philosoph und Dichter)。莱比锡，1832年。

凯伊主教 (Bishop Kaye)：《亚历山大革利免的著作与观点述略》(Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alex.)。伦敦，1835年。

克林 (Kling)：《亚历山大革利免对于神学形成的意义》(Die Bedeutung des Clem. Alex. für die Entstehung der Theol.)，载《研究与批评》(Stud. u. Krit.)，1841年第4期。

H. J. 莱因肯斯 (H. J. Reinkens)：《论亚历山大革利免其人、其作家、哲学家与神学家身份》(De Clem. Alex. homine, scriptore, philosopho, theologo.)。弗拉提斯拉夫 (Wratisl.，即布雷斯劳 Breslau)，1851年。

H. 罗伊特 (H. Reuter)：《亚历山大革利免的道德神学》(Clementis Alex. Theol. moralis.)。柏林，1853年。

莱默 (Laemmer.)：《亚历山大革利免的逻各斯教义》(Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina.)。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1855年。

科尼亚神父 (Abbé Cognat)：《亚历山大的革利免》(Clement d’Alexandrie)。巴黎，1859年。

J. H. 缪勒 (J. H. Müller)：《亚历山大革利免的教义思想》(Idées dogm. de Clement d’Alex.)。斯特拉斯堡 (Strasb.)，1861年。

CH. E. 弗雷佩尔 (CH. E. Freppel，罗马天主教)：《亚历山大的革利免》(Clément d’Alexandrie)。巴黎，1866年；第二版，1873年。

C. 默克 (C. Merk)：《亚历山大革利免对希腊哲学的依赖》(Clemens v. Alex. in s. Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie.)。莱比锡，1879年。

Fr. Jul. 温特 (Fr. Jul. Winter)：《亚历山大革利免的伦理学》(Die Ethik des Clemens v. Alex.)。莱比锡，1882年（《基督教伦理学史研究》〔Studien zur Gesch. der christl. Ethik〕第一部分）。

雅各比 (Jacobi) 撰文，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，第III卷，第269–277页；韦斯科特 (Westcott) 撰文，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，第I卷，第559–567页。

Theod. 察恩 (Theod. Zahn)：《革利免补编》(Supplementum Clementinum)。其《新约正典史研究》(Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. lichen Kanons) 第三部分。埃尔朗根，1884年。

I. 提图斯·弗拉维乌斯·革利免 (Titus Flavius Clemens)²⁷¹ 出身于希腊，可能来自雅典。他约生于150年，自幼在异教中长大。他精通希腊文学的各个分支及当时所有的哲学体系，但在其中找不到任何足以满足他对真理之渴慕的东西。因此，他成年后接受了基督教，并长途跋涉，往来东西各地，寻访最卓越的教师，他们“保存着纯正救恩教义的传统，将那真正的使徒种子栽植在学生心里”。他在埃及深受潘代努斯吸引；他形容潘代努斯说：“他像西西里的蜜蜂，从使徒和先知的草场采集花蜜，以真正纯洁的知识充满门徒的心灵。”他成为亚历山大教会的长老，约于公元189年接替潘代努斯，出任该城教理学校的主管。他在这里温厚地劳作了约十二年，致力于异教徒的归信和基督徒的教育，直到202年塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁 (Septimius Severus) 治下的逼迫似乎迫使他逃离。此后，我们发现他在安提阿，最后于211年与他从前的学生、主教亚历山大 (Alexander) 同在耶路撒冷。他是否从那里返回亚历山大，已无从得知。他死于220年以前，与德尔图良去世的时间大致相同。他与奥利金一样，并未列于罗马教会的圣徒之中，尽管古时常有人以这一尊称称呼他。他的名字见于早期西方的殉道者名录，但革利免八世 (Clement VIII) 依照巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 的建议颁行殉道者名录时，将其删去。本笃十四世 (Benedict XIV) 以其教义不健全为由，于1748年详加辩护，支持这一删略。

革利免是亚历山大基督教哲学之父。他兼具深厚的圣经与希腊学养、天才和思辨能力。在许多方面，他远远超越了当时的偏见，达于更自由、更属灵的见解。然而，他的神学并非一个统一的整体，而是将真正的基督教要素与许多斯多葛派、柏拉图派及斐洛的成分，杂乱地折衷混合在一起。他的著作充满重复，全然缺乏清楚、固定的方法。他零星地抛出富有启发而往往深刻的思想，或刻意以神秘的晦暗将它们遮蔽起来，尤其在《杂篇》(Stromata) 中如此；为的是不让圈外大众窥见，并激发已经入门或具有哲学修养的基督徒去研究。在这一点上，他表现出与异教秘仪崇拜及诺斯替秘密教义的近似。他对希腊文学的广博知识，以及对诗人、哲学家、历史学家已佚作品的大量引用，也使他在古典时代的研究中占有重要地位。他生活在一个过渡时代，基督教思想正开始掌握并吸收人类知识的整个领域。韦斯科特博士说：“即使坦率承认，他的文体通常不够简练优雅，他的方法散漫无章，他的学问未经消化，我们仍然可以满怀感激，赞叹他知识的丰富、阅读的广博、同情的宽厚、志向的崇高，以及他对信仰之职分与能力所抱的高贵观念。”
他于190至195年间在亚历山大任教时所写的三部主要著作，代表神圣逻各斯教养人类的三个阶段，与古代秘仪导师所要求的三个知识等级相对应；²⁷²三者的相互关系，大致如同护教学、伦理学与教义学，或信、爱与神秘的直观，又如基督教崇拜中直至举行圣礼奥秘的各个阶段。《劝勉希腊人》²⁷³共三卷，几乎不惜滥用学识，指出异教的不合理与不道德，同时也指出其中较高尚的预言性要素，力求引导罪人悔改、相信。《训蒙师》，或称《教育者》，²⁷⁴不断参照异教习俗，阐明基督教道德，劝勉人过圣洁生活，其终极目标是与上帝相似。教育者就是基督，他所训练的孩童，就是单纯诚挚的信徒。《杂篇》或称《杂集》²⁷⁵共七卷（第八卷包含一篇不完整的逻辑学论文，系伪托之作），为人提供更深认识基督教的指引，却没有任何有条理的安排，而是将历史奇闻、诗歌佳句、哲学遐想、基督教真理及异端谬误混杂在一起（书名由此而来）。他将此书比作林木茂密、绿荫深浓的山地或园圃，各种结果与不结果的树木——柏树、月桂、常春藤、苹果、橄榄、无花果——杂乱地聚生在一起，使其中许多树木可以躲过掠夺者的眼目，却不逃过耕作者的注意；后者可以将它们移植，排列成悦目的秩序。这部书可能只是更全面的神学著作的序曲。在末尾，作者描绘真正的灵知者、亦即完全的基督徒之理想形象；除其他特征外，还赋予他一种斯多葛式的超然，超越一切感官情欲。鼓舞革利免的思想是：基督教满足人类在理智与道德上的一切向往和需要。

除这些主要著作外，我们还保存着革利免一篇论正确使用财富的精辟论文，带有适度的禁欲倾向。²⁷⁶他的伦理原则出自希腊哲学，却受到基督教精神的激发。他虽显然受禁欲主义影响，却没有走向其极端。他的释经著作，²⁷⁷以及一篇反驳孟他努派 (Montanists)、论预言的论战著作，和另一篇反对小亚细亚犹太化习俗、论逾越节的著作，除少量零碎残篇外，都已散佚。

我们所拥有的传世最古老的基督教赞美诗，也出自革利免；这是一首格调崇高却略显浮夸的颂歌，赞美逻各斯为人类神圣的教育者和引导者。²⁷⁸

§ 187. 奥利金

(I.) 奥利金：《希腊文及拉丁文全集》(Origenis Opera omnia Graece et Lat.)，Carol. 与 Vinc. 德拉吕 (Carol. et Vinc. De la Rue) 编。巴黎，1733–59年，4卷，对开本。这是唯一的完整版本，由本笃会士查尔斯·德拉吕 (Charles D. L. R.) 着手编订，死后由其侄文森特 (Vincent) 完成。1857年重刊于米涅《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，8卷，并收入加朗 (Galland，1781年)、克拉默 (Cramer，1840–44年) 和迈 (Mai，1854年) 所辑的增补。

其他版本的编者有：J. 梅利努斯 (J. Merlinus，初版，巴黎，1512–19年，2卷，对开本；又于1516年在威尼斯、1522及1530年在巴黎刊行，仅有拉丁文文本)；伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 与贝亚图斯·雷纳努斯 (Beatus Rhenanus，巴塞尔，1536年，2卷，对开本；1545年；1551年；1557年；1571年)；本笃会士 G. 热内布拉尔 (G. Genebrard，巴黎，1574年；1604年；1619年，2卷，对开本，均为拉丁文)；科尔德里乌斯 (Corderius，安特卫普，1648年，部分为希腊文)；P. D. 胡埃提乌斯 (P. D. Huetius)，又名胡埃 (Huet)，后来任阿夫朗什 (Avranges) 主教（鲁昂，1668年，2卷，对开本，收希腊文著作，并附有极富学识的论文《奥利金研究》〔Origeniana〕；又于1679年在巴黎、1685年在科隆刊行）；蒙福孔 (Montfaucon，仅《六经合璧》〔Hexapla〕，巴黎，1713、1714年，2卷，对开本；菲尔德〔Field〕修订增进版，牛津，1875年)；洛马奇 (Lommatsch，柏林，1837–48年，25卷，八开本)。

F. 克龙比 (F. Crombie) 的奥利金作品选集英译本，收入克拉克《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，爱丁堡，1868年；纽约，1885年。

(II.) 优西比乌：《教会史》(Hist. Eccles.)，VI. 1–6及各处。哲罗姆：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，54；《书信》(Ep.)，29、41及多处。神迹行者贵格利 (Gregorius Thaumat.)：《颂奥利金》(Oratio panegyrica in Origenem)。潘菲卢斯 (Pamphilus)：《为奥利金辩护》(Apologia Orig.)。鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus)：《论奥利金著作的窜改》(De Adulteratione librorum Origenis.)。均收入德拉吕 (Delarue) 版末卷。

(III.) P. D. 胡埃提乌斯：《奥利金研究》(Origeniana)。巴黎，1679年，2卷（亦收入德拉吕版第4卷）。学识极为渊博，并为奥利金辩护。

G. 托马修斯 (G. Thomasius)：《奥利金：教义史论稿》(Origenes. Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengesch.)。纽伦堡，1837年。

E. Rud. 雷德彭宁 (E. Rud. Redepenning)：《奥利金：其生平与学说述论》(Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre.)。波恩，1841及1846年，2卷（分别为461及491页）。

伯林格 (Böhringer)：《奥利金及其师革利免，或亚历山大教会内部的基督教灵知》(Origenes und sein Lehrer Klemens, oder die Alexandrinische innerkirchliche Gnosis des Christenthums.)。收入《传记体教会史》(Kirchengesch. in Biographieen) 第V卷。第二版，莱比锡，1873年。

Ch. E. 弗雷佩尔 (Ch. E. Freppel，罗马天主教)：《奥利金》(Origène)。巴黎，1868年；第二版，1875年。

参较施米茨 (Schmitz) 载于史密斯 (Smith)《希腊罗马传记辞典》(Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biogr.) III. 46–55的条目；默勒 (Möller) 载于赫尔措格 (Herzog) 第二版²第XI卷92–109页的条目；韦斯科特 (Westcott) 载于《基督教传记辞典》(Dict. of Chr. Biogr.) IV. 96–142的条目；法勒 (Farrar)《教父生平》(Lives of the Fathers) I. 291–330。

另参布尔 (Bull，《尼西亚信仰辩护》〔Defens. Fid. Nic.〕第IX章，收入德拉吕〔Delarue〕编本，IV. 339–357)、尼安德 (Neander)、鲍尔 (Baur) 及多尔纳 (Dorner) 著作中的有关各节（尤其论奥利金的三位一体与道成肉身教义者）；关于其哲学，参里特尔 (Ritter)、胡贝尔 (Huber)、于伯韦格 (Ueberweg)。

I. 生平与品格。奥利金 (Origenes)²⁷⁹ 因其勤勉和品格纯洁，被称为“阿达曼提乌斯”(Adamantius)。²⁸⁰ 无论就天才与学识、他对所处时代施加的影响，还是其见解引起的争论与讨论而言，他都是历史上最卓异的人物之一。他于185年生在亚历山大 (Alexandria) 的基督徒家庭，很可能幼时便按照埃及的习俗受了洗；他认为这一习俗源自使徒。²⁸¹ 他在父亲利奥尼德 (Leonides)²⁸²——很可能是一位修辞学教师——以及教理学校著名的革利免指导下，接受了敬虔而渊博的教育。他尚在童年时，便能将圣经整段背诵出来，并且屡次提出有关圣经深意的问题，使父亲困惑。父亲责备他的好奇心，却又为有这样的儿子感谢上帝，常常在他熟睡时，怀着敬意亲吻他的胸膛，视之为圣灵的殿。202年塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁 (Septimius Severus) 施行逼迫时，他写信给狱中的父亲，恳求他不要为家人的缘故否认基督；他自己也强烈渴望向异教官府自首，只因母亲藏起他的衣服，才未能如愿。利奥尼德殉道而死，财产也被没收，留下一个孤苦无助的寡妇和七个孩子。奥利金曾一度得到一位富有妇人的资助，后来则靠教授希腊语言文学和抄写手稿谋生。

203年，他虽仅十八岁，却已由后来成为其对手的主教德米特里乌斯 (Demetrius) 任命为亚历山大教理学校校长，接替因革利免出逃而留下的空缺。为胜任这一重任，他熟悉了各派异端，尤其是诺斯替派 (Gnostic)，并钻研希腊哲学；他甚至不以师从异教徒、著名的新柏拉图主义创始人阿摩尼乌斯·萨卡斯 (Ammonius Saccas) 为耻。他还学习希伯来语，并曾游历罗马（211年）、阿拉伯、巴勒斯坦（215年）和希腊。在罗马，他与《哲学驳论》(Philosophumena) 的作者希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 略有交往；后者是当时学识仅次于他的人。德林格 (Döllinger) 认为，几乎可以断定，在希波吕托斯与泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 和卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 的争论中，他站在希波吕托斯一边；因为他也赞同后者严峻的教会纪律原则（至少在早年如此），厌恶大城市中傲慢专横的主教，并在三位一体问题上持从属论的观点。然而，在天才、思想深度和洞察力方面，他远远超过这位年长的同时代人。²⁸³

随着工作日益繁重、学生人数增加，他将教理学校的初级班交给学生赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas) 负责，自己则专心教授程度较高的学生。他成功地引导许多著名的异教徒和异端信徒归入大公教会；其中有一位富有的诺斯替派信徒安布罗修斯 (Ambrosius)，后来成为他最慷慨的资助者，为他的圣经研究提供了一座耗资甚巨的藏书室、七名速记员和若干抄写员（其中有些是年轻的基督徒女子）；前者记下他的口述，后者将其誊清。他的声誉传遍埃及各地。亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus) 皇帝的母亲尤利娅·玛玛埃娅 (Julia Mammaea) 于218年请他到安提阿 (Antioch)，向他学习基督教教义。一位阿拉伯王公也为同一目的，屈尊前来拜访他。

在这整个时期，他的生活方式始终是严格禁欲的。他以舍弃一切非绝对必需的属世事物为原则。他拒收学生的馈赠，照着救主吩咐的字面意义，只留一件衣服，不穿鞋，也不为明天忧虑。他很少吃肉，从不饮酒；夜间大半时间用来祷告和研究，睡在光秃秃的地板上。不仅如此，他年轻时热衷于禁欲式的圣洁，竟施行自阉，一方面是为天国的缘故，要按字面实行基督在《马太福音》19:12中那奥秘的话，另一方面也是要使自己免受与众多女性慕道者交往时可能产生的各种试探和诽谤。²⁸⁴ 这种欠缺思虑、方向错误的英雄行为，令他按照教会法规丧失了担任圣职的资格；他本人到了较成熟的年岁，也曾为此后悔。然而，很久以后，在228年，两位友好的主教——耶路撒冷的亚历山大 (Alexander) 和巴勒斯坦凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的狄奥克提斯图斯 (Theoctistus)——仍按立他为长老。甚至在此以前，他有一次到访时，这两位主教便已邀请当时尚为平信徒的他，在他们的教会中公开施教，为会众讲解圣经。

然而，这次在外地接受的按立本身，加上奥利金在异教徒和基督徒中日益增长的声誉，激起了亚历山大主教德米特里乌斯的嫉妒。后者又指控他以外来的哲学思辨败坏基督教，这一指控也并非全无根据。这位主教于公元231年和232年召开两次会议，对付这位伟大的神学家，裁定因其错误教义、自残身体和违反教会法规，革除他的长老与教理教师职务，并将他逐出教会。这项由嫉妒、教阶权势的傲慢和维护正统的热忱交织而成的不义判决，按惯例通报了其他教会。向来乐于宣布咒诅的罗马教会，未经进一步调查便表示赞同；而较为了解实情的巴勒斯坦、阿拉伯、腓尼基 (Phoenicia) 和亚该亚 (Achaia) 各教会，则坚决表示反对。

在这场争论中，奥利金表现出真正的基督徒温柔。他论到仇敌时说：“我们应当怜悯他们，而不是恨他们；为他们祈祷，而不是咒诅他们；因为我们受造是为祝福，不是为咒诅。”他投奔了朋友——巴勒斯坦凯撒利亚的主教，在那里继续研究，开设了一所新的哲学与神学学校，其声望不久便超过了亚历山大的学校，并为上帝国度的扩展而劳苦。马克西米努斯·色雷克斯 (Maximinus Thrax) 治下的逼迫（235年），迫使他一度逃往加帕多家 (Cappadocia)。他由那里前往希腊，随后又返回巴勒斯坦。各方在种种教会争端中请他参与磋商，他还广泛通信，通信对象甚至包括阿拉伯人腓力 (Philip the Arabian) 皇帝及其妻子。他虽被当作异端逐出故乡，却在异乡挽回了迷途者，使他们重归教会的信仰。例如，在阿拉伯的一次会议上，他使主教贝里鲁斯 (Beryllus) 认识到自己在基督论上的错误，并说服他撤回其主张（公元244年）。

最后，他受到隆重邀请，请他返回亚历山大；其间，他的学生狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius) 已在那里担任主教。然而，在德基乌斯 (Decius) 的逼迫中，他被投入监狱，遭受酷刑，并被判处火刑；虽然皇帝死后他重获自由，但不久之后，他便于253年或254年在推罗 (Tyre) 去世，享年六十九岁，很可能正是那次暴行所致。因此，即使不把他列在殉道者之中，也至少应将他列在认信者之中。他葬于推罗。

对于这样一位非凡的人，我们不能不怀着敬重的同情、崇敬和感激。他虽然才华横溢，拥有众多热情的朋友和仰慕者，却被逐出故土，剥夺圣职，被一部分教会开除；随后又被投入地牢，身负锁链，备受酷刑，注定要在痛苦与贫困中拖着衰老的身躯和脱臼的四肢度日；甚至死后很久，其身后名誉仍遭玷污，其名字受到咒诅，其得救也被否认。²⁸⁵ 然而，在推进神圣学问、驳斥并引导异教徒和异端信徒归信，以及使教会在世人眼中受到尊重等方面，他所做的比所有仇敌加在一起还多。

他的神学。奥利金是他那个时代最伟大的学者，也是所有尼西亚会议以前的教父中最有天赋、最勤奋、学养最深厚的一位。甚至异教徒和异端信徒，也对他的卓越才华和渊博学识感到钦佩或畏惧。他的知识涵盖了当时语文学、哲学和神学的各个领域。与此同时，他还兼有深刻而丰富的思想、敏锐的洞察力和炽烈的想象力。作为一位真正的神学家，他以祷告将自己的一切研究分别为圣，并按自己最深切的确信，使之服务于真理和敬虔。

在许多方面，他可以称为希腊教会的施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)。他引导人从异教哲学和异端的灵知 (Gnosis) 转向基督教信仰。在推动大公教会神学的发展，以及造就尼西亚时期伟大的教父——亚他那修 (Athanasius)、巴西尔 (Basil)、两位贵格利 (Gregories)、希拉里 (Hilary) 和安布罗斯 (Ambrose)——方面，他发挥了不可估量的影响；因此，这些教父尽管看到他种种偏离之处，仍高度评价他的贡献。然而，他最优秀的门徒并未忠于他许多最独特的见解，而是更多地持守教会占主导地位的信仰。因为，无论按大公教会还是按新教的意义，他都绝不能称为正统——在这一点上，他也与施莱尔马赫相似。他倾向于唯心主义，偏爱柏拉图 (Plato)，并怀着高尚的愿望，力求使基督教与理性协调，甚至向有教养的异教徒和诺斯替派人士推荐基督教；这一切使他陷入许多宏大而迷人的错误。其中包括：他对身体性所持的极端禁欲主义、近乎幻影说的观念；他否认物质身体的复活；他关于灵魂先存及其在时间开始以前堕落的教义（包括基督的人类灵魂的先存）；关于永恒创造的教义；关于救赎之工扩及星辰上的居民和一切有理性受造物的教义；以及关于所有人和堕落天使最终复归的教义。在基督神性的教义上，他虽曾有力维护这一教义，并首先明确教导圣子的永恒受生，但若将他视为阿里乌派 (Arian) 的“异质”说（heteroousion），或至少半阿里乌派 (semi-Arian) 的“相似本质”说（homoiousion）的先驱，也几乎与视他为亚他那修“同质”说（homoousion）的先驱同样有理。

这些以及类似的观点，在他生前已引起程度不等的反对；后来，在543年于君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 举行的一次地方会议上，甚至被正式定为异端。²⁸⁶ 然而，在那样的时代，这样一个人可以持有错误见解，却并非异端者。因为奥利金提出自己的观点时，始终态度谦逊，并真诚确信这些观点与圣经相符；而且在当时，教会的教义在许多问题上尚远未明确。因此，连博学的罗马天主教神学家，如蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 和默勒 (Möhler)，也对奥利金表现出极大的尊重与宽容；这一点尤其值得称许，因为罗马教会不肯将他列入严格意义上的圣徒与教父之中，对亚历山大的革利免和德尔图良也是如此。

奥利金最大的贡献在于释经。他是圣经批判研究之父，他的注释因富于启发，至今仍对学者有用。行神迹者贵格利 (Gregory Thaumaturgus) 说，他“从上帝领受了最大的恩赐，就是向人解释上帝的话”。就那个时代而言，这一评价完全公允。在释经方面，奥利金一直被奉为权威，直到金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 远远超过了他；后者胜过他的，并非思想的独创性与活力，也不是学识的广博，而是健全稳重的判断、简明自然的分析，以及对经文的实际应用。奥利金的重大缺陷，是忽略文法与历史的意义，并且总想寻出一种隐藏的奥秘意义。在这方面，他甚至比那些处处看见超验而不可测度之奥秘的诺斯替派走得更远。他的释经原则假定经文有三重意义——属身体的、属魂的、属灵的；或说，字面的、道德的、属灵的。他的寓意解释颇为巧妙，却往往远离经文，沦为纯粹的随意臆想；有时却又转向相反的极端，采取一种属肉体的字面主义，用以为自己过度的禁欲行为辩护。²⁸⁷

奥利金是尼西亚会议以前希腊文新约文本最重要的见证者之一；这种文本比公认本文更为古老。他比较不同的抄本，并注明文本异读，却未尝试校订文本，也没有提出任何文本批判的原则。他的见证之所以可贵，是因为他拥有难得的条件，并且在传统的叙利亚与拜占庭文本形成以前，毕生研读圣经。

§ 188. 奥利金的著作

奥利金是一位异常多产的作者，却绝不是无所用心的编书匠。哲罗姆说，他写的书比别人所能读的还多。他的反对者伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius) 声称，他的著作共有六千种；若把他的所有短篇论著、讲道和书信都包括在内，并分别算作一卷，这个数字也许并不十分夸张。其中许多是别人记录他的口头讲授而成，并未得到他的协助，有时甚至违背他的意愿。他现存的著作中，有些仅以拉丁文译本流传下来，而且为迎合后来的正统教义而作了许多改动。这些著作涵盖了当时神学的所有分支。

他的圣经著作数量最多，可以分为校勘、释经和劝勉三类。

校勘著作有《六栏本》(Hexapla)²⁸⁸（即六重圣经）和篇幅较短的《四栏本》(Tetrapla)（即四重圣经）；他为此付出了二十八年最为孜孜不倦的劳动。《六栏本》是第一部多语种圣经，却仅包括旧约；其目的不是以校勘恢复原文，而只是改进通行的七十士译本，并为它辩护，驳斥其不准确的指控。它分为六栏，载有两种形式的原文——希伯来文字和希腊字母转写——以及四种希腊文译本，即七十士译本、亚居拉 (Aquila) 译本、辛马库 (Symmachus) 译本和狄奥多田 (Theodotion) 译本。在其中几卷，他又增添了两种或三种匿名的希腊文译本。²⁸⁹ 排列次序取决于直译的程度。《四栏本》²⁹⁰则只收亚居拉、辛马库、七十士和狄奥多田四种译本。凡偏离标准之处，他都用校勘符号标明：以星号（asterisk，）标示改动与增补，以删除号（obelos，）标示拟删之处。他也加入旁注，例如*解释希伯来名字。这部浩繁的著作存放在凯撒利亚的图书馆中，直到哲罗姆的时代仍被广泛使用（哲罗姆曾在那里见过它）；但除某些部分外，无疑从未被完整抄录。其中最常抄录的是七十士译本的各栏（例如潘菲鲁和优西比乌便曾抄录，并将其视为标准文本）。全书很可能于653年毁于撒拉森人之手。因此，我们仅存其若干残篇，由博学的本笃会士蒙福孔 (Montfaucon) 于1714年搜集编辑，近来又由同样博学的圣公会学者菲尔德博士 (Dr. Field) 于1875年整理出版。¹⁴⁷³

他的注释几乎涵盖旧约和新约的全部书卷，蕴藏着极其丰富、独创而深刻的见解，也夹杂着极为任意的寓意和神秘幻想。这些注释分为三类：(a) 为初学者所作、解释个别难解经文的短注；²⁹¹除从教父引文中辑出的部分外，全部散佚（德拉吕 [Delarue] 将这些辑文题为《选注》〔Ἐκλογαί^* Selecta〕）。(b) 为更高层次的学术研究所作、详解整卷经书的长篇注释；²⁹²其中有不少重要残篇，以原文和鲁菲努 (Rufinus) 的译文保存下来。《约翰福音注释》大量采用了赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 的诺斯替派释经。(c) 为会众所作的劝勉性或实用性的经文讲解，即讲道。²⁹³这些讲道都是即席讲授的，多数讲于凯撒利亚，并在他晚年，由速记员记录下来。它们对讲道史也很重要。但我们仅存其中一部分，均为哲罗姆和鲁菲努所译，带有许多毫无顾忌的删削和增补，使研究者困惑，也容易误导他们。

护教与论战著作。他于晚年约248年写成的八卷本著作，驳斥了塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 对基督教的攻击；其原文完整保存下来，是奥利金乃至整个古代护教文献中最成熟、最有价值的作品之一。²⁹⁴然而，他并不知道这位塞尔苏斯究竟是谁，也不知道此人生活在尼禄统治时期，还是哈德良 (Hadrian) 统治时期；现代学者则将他置于公元150至178年之间。他反驳异端的众多论战著作，都已散佚。
在他的教义著作中，我们保存了他早年的作品《论原理》(De Principiis)，即论基督教信仰基本教义的四卷本著作，不过仅存鲁菲努不准确的拉丁文译本。²⁹⁵此书写于亚历山大，后来成为反对其神学的主要依据。这是建立完整教义学体系的第一次尝试，却充满了他特有的柏拉图化和诺斯替化的错误，其中一些是他在较成熟的年岁里撤回的。奥利金在这部四卷本著作中，首先论上帝、基督和圣灵；第二卷论创造、道成肉身、复活和审判；第三卷论自由，他极力阐述并维护自由，以反对诺斯替派；第四卷论圣经、圣经的默示与权威，以及圣经的解释；最后以重述三位一体的教义作结。他仿照亚历山大的革利免 (Clemens Alex.) 同名著作所写的《杂学》(Stromata)，似乎兼论教义与释经，除哲罗姆以拉丁文引用的两三则残篇外，均已散佚。他的《论复活》(Resurrection) 也已散佚。
他的实践性著作中，值得一提的有一篇论祷告的著作，内含对主祷文的解释；²⁹⁶还有一篇劝勉人殉道的著作，²⁹⁷写于马克西明 (Maximin) 逼迫时期（235—238年），致他的朋友兼资助者安布罗修 (Ambrosius)。
他的书信，优西比乌 (Eusebius) 曾搜集了八百多封；除少数残篇外，我们仅存他答复尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯 (Julius Africanus)、讨论苏撒拿故事真实性的一封信。

奥利金的著作中通常也收入《爱美集》(Philocalia)，这是纳齐安祖斯的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen) 与大巴西尔 (Basil the Great) 从他的著作中摘录有关各种释经问题的文字而编成的一部文集，共二十七章。²⁹⁸

§ 189. 行神迹者贵格利

T. S. 贵格利《新凯撒利亚主教全集》(Gregorii episcopi Neocaesariensis Opera omnia)，G. 沃修斯 (G. Vossius) 编，Mag.，1604年；较佳版本由弗龙托·杜凯乌斯 (Fronto Ducaeus) 编，Par.，1622年，对开本；亦收入加兰迪 (Gallandi)《古教父文库》(Bibl. Vet. Patrum)（1766—77年），第III卷，第385—470页；以及米涅 (Migne)《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，第X卷（1857年），第983—1343栏。另参贵格利《分条信仰论》（κατὰ μέρος πίστις^*）的叙利亚文译本，载R. 德·拉加德 (R. de Lagarde)《叙利亚文选集》(Analecta Syriaca)，Leipz.，1858年，第31—67页。

尼撒的贵格利 (Gregory of Nyssa)：《圣行神迹者贵格利生平及颂词》（Βίος καὶ ἐγκώμιον ῥηθὲν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Γρηγόριον τὸν θαυματουργόν.^*）。载《尼撒的贵格利著作集》（米涅，第46卷）。这篇颂词充满令人难以置信的神迹，都是作者从祖母那里听来的。

S. D. F. 萨尔蒙德 (S. D. F. Salmond) 的英译本，载克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚会议前文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第xx卷（1871年），第1—156页。

C. P. 卡斯帕里 (C. P. Caspari)：《洗礼信经与信仰准则史的新旧资料》(Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesc. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel)。Christiania，1879年，第1—160页。

维克托·里塞尔 (Victor Ryssel)：《行神迹者贵格利：其生平与著作》(Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften)。Leipzig，1880年（160页）。有关贵格利的其他传记论文，见里塞尔，第59页及下页。本书收有贵格利两篇此前不为人知的叙利亚文著作的译文。

W. 默勒 (W. Möller)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 第2版²，第V卷，第404页及下页。H. R. 雷诺兹 (H. R. Reynolds)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith & Wace)，第II卷，第730—737页。

第三、第四世纪的大多数希腊教父，都或多或少受到奥利金精神与著作的影响，却并未接受他所有独特的思辨观点。他的门徒中最杰出的有行神迹者贵格利、号称“大者”的亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alexandria)、赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas)、希拉卡斯 (Hieracas)、潘菲鲁 (Pamphilus)；从较广的意义上说，也包括优西比乌、尼撒的贵格利和尼西亚时期其他杰出的神学家。

贵格利，号称陶马图尔古斯 (Thaumaturgus)，意即“行神迹者”，青年时在巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的凯撒利亚，因奥利金的引导而从异教归信，与他相处八年；此后退居默想了一段时期，便于244至270年间担任本都 (Pontus) 的新凯撒利亚 (Neo-Caesarea) 主教，工作成效非凡。他临终时能够感谢上帝，因为他留给继任者的教区内不信者人数，不多于他就任时在那里找到的基督徒人数；而那时的基督徒只有十七人。他必定具有极大的传教热忱和办事才能。他出席了265年的安提阿会议 (Synod of Antioch)，该会议谴责了撒摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samasota)。

后来的传说将他描绘为“第二个摩西”，并将种种非凡的神迹归于他。但这些事直到他身后一百年，才由尼撒的贵格利和巴西尔提及；他们还将他塑造成一位在尼西亚会议以前便维护尼西亚正统信仰的人。优西比乌对这些事一无所知，也不知道他的三位一体信经；据说，这信经是他在异象中藉着特别启示领受的。²⁹⁹对于一位崇敬奥利金的门徒来说，这篇信经几乎正统得过分，并且似乎预设了阿里乌之争（尤其是结尾部分）。它很可能曾被扩充。另一篇归于他名下、篇幅更长的信经，则是小阿波利拿里 (Apollinaris) 于第四世纪末的作品。³⁰⁰

在他的真作中，有一篇热情颂扬其敬爱的老师奥利金的颂词，堪称后期希腊雄辩文的杰作。³⁰¹还有一篇对《传道书》的简明意译。³⁰²此外还须加上最近以叙利亚文译本出版的两部著作，一部论父、子、圣灵的同等地位，另一部论上帝的不受苦性与可能性。

注释

I. 这篇《信仰宣言》(ἔκθεσις πίστεως κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν^*)，据说是圣约翰应童贞女马利亚之请，在夜间的异象中启示给贵格利的；而它的亲笔原稿，在尼撒的贵格利 (Gregory of Nyssa) 的时代，仍由新凯撒利亚教会保存（据他本人所说）。这确实是一份极其引人注目的文献，也是尼西亚会议以前对三位一体教义最明确的陈述。卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 在其《新旧史料》(Alte und neue Quellen, 等，1879年，第25–64页) 中，经过详尽讨论，得出结论说，这篇信经没有任何与奥利金门徒的身份不相容之处，是贵格利于公元260至270年间，为反对撒伯流主义 (Sabellianism) 和撒摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samosata)，并针对亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alexandria) 与罗马的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Rome) 之间有关三位一体的争论而写成的。但我认为，更可能的是，后来有人在其结尾处作过一些增补。这基本上也是尼安德 (Neander) 和多尔纳 (Dorner) 的看法（《基督位格教义发展史》，Entwicklungsgesch. der L. v. d. Pers. Christi, I. 735–737）。无论如何，这篇信经都是一部极其引人注目的作品，是拉丁文《凡愿得救者》(Quicunque) 在希腊文中的先声；后者被错误地冠以《亚他那修信经》之名。我们将希腊文连同译文列在下面。见曼西 (Mansi)，《会议集》(Conc.) I. 1030；《希腊教父集》(Patr. Gr.) X，第983栏；卡斯帕里，前引书（l. c.）；比较沙弗 (Schaff)《基督教世界的信经》(Creeds of Christendom) II. 40及41的对照表。

行神迹者贵格利的《信仰宣言》

Εἷς Θεὸς, Πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος,^*σοφία^*ς ὑφεστώσης καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου, τέλειος τελείου γεννήτωρ, Πατὴρ Υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς^*

独一的上帝，是永活之道的父；这道是自存的智慧、能力和永恒的真像；他是完全者，是完全者的生育者，是独生子的父。

有一位上帝，是永活之道的父；这道是他实存的智慧、能力和永恒的印记（形像）。他是完全者的完全生者，是独生子的父。

Εἷς Κύριος, μόνος ἐκ μόνου, θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός,^*σοφία^*τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναμις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, Υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ Πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου^*

独一的主，独一者出于独一者，上帝出于上帝，是神性的真像与形像，是大有功效的道，是涵括万有之构成的智慧，是创造一切受造之物的能力；他是真实之父的真实之子，是出于不可见者的不可见者，出于不朽坏者的不朽坏者，出于不死者的不死者，出于永恒者的永恒者。

有一位主，独一者出于独一者，上帝出于上帝，是神性的形像和样式，是施行大能的道，是包罗万物体系的智慧，是创造整个受造界的能力；是真父的真子，不可见者出于不可见者，不朽坏者出于不朽坏者，不死者出于不死者，永恒者出于永恒者。

Καὶ ἓν Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, ἐκ θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καὶ δι’ Υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς (δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις), εἰκὼν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τελείου τελεία, ζωή, ζώντων αἰτία, πηγὴ ἁγία, ἁγιότης, ἁγιασμοῦ χορηγός: ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ θεὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντων: τριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη μηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουμένη.^*

又有一位圣灵，其存在出于上帝，并藉着子显现（即向人显现）；他是完全之子的完全形像，是生命，是众生的本原，是圣洁的泉源，是圣洁本身，是成圣的赐予者；在他里面，那超乎万有之上、又在万有之中的父上帝，以及那贯乎万有之中的子上帝，都显明出来。这是完全的三一，在荣耀、永恒和王权上，既不分割，也不分离。

又有一位圣灵，他的存在出于上帝，并藉着子显现（即向人类显现）；是完全之子的完全样式；是生命，是一切有生命者的根源；是神圣的泉源；是圣洁，是使人成圣的赐予者。在他里面，那超乎万有之上、又在万有之中的父上帝，以及那贯乎万有的子上帝，得以显明：这是完全的三位一体，在荣耀、永恒和权柄上，既不分割，也不相离。

Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον μὲν οὐχ ὑπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν: οὔτε οὖν ἐνέλιπέ ποτε Υἱὸς Πατρὶ, οὔτε Υἱῷ Πνεῦμα ἀλλὰ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί.^*

因此，三一之中没有任何受造的或为奴的，也没有后来添入的，仿佛先前不存在、后来才进入其中。因此，父从来未曾没有子，子也从来未曾没有圣灵；这同一的三一永远不变，也不更改。

因此，三位一体之中，没有任何受造的或居于奴仆地位的，也没有后来增添的，仿佛先前不存在，后来才引入。父也从未缺少子，子也从未缺少圣灵；同一的三位一体永远恒定不移，毫无改变。

第四世纪，即行神迹者贵格利去世一百年后，开明而富于哲思的尼撒的贵格利将种种神迹归于他；到了十九世纪，英国的纽曼枢机 (Cardinal Newman) 又为这些神迹的可信性辩护（《论圣经与教会神迹的两篇论文》，Two Essays on Bibl. and Eccles. Miracles.，伦敦，第3版，1873年，第261–270页）。这些神迹惊人之极，超过了《新约》中关于使徒的一切记载。

贵格利不仅赶鬼、医病、将偶像逐出异教庙宇，而且只凭一句话便移动巨石，改变亚美尼亚 (Armenia) 的吕库斯河 (Lycus) 的河道，甚至像古时的摩西一样，使一座湖干涸。圣尼撒的贵格利这样叙述最后这一件事：有两个年轻的兄弟，都声称有权继承一座湖作为祖产。（湖的名称和地点均未交代。）他们没有把湖分割，而是将争端交给这位行神迹者裁决；他劝勉他们彼此和好。然而，这两个年轻人却怒不可遏，决定作一场以性命相搏的决斗。这时，那位神人留在湖边，藉着祷告的能力，将整座湖变成旱地，从而平息了争端。

除去这些在这位圣徒死后一百年的时间距离中被放大而产生的神奇色彩，仍然留下一个伟大而善良之人的巍然形像；他对自己那一代以及后来的世代产生了极其强大的影响。

§ 190. 大狄奥尼修

(I.) 《圣亚历山大主教狄奥尼修现存著作与书信残篇》(S. Dionysii Episcopi Alexandrini quae supersunt Operum et Episto larum fragmenta)，载于米涅 (Migne)《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，第X卷，第1237–1344栏，及补遗，第1575–1602栏。较早的残篇集由西蒙·德·马吉斯特里斯 (Simon de Magistris) 编，罗马，1796年；另见劳思 (Routh)《圣文遗存》(Rel. Sacr.)，第IV卷，第393–454页。另加皮特拉 (Pitra)《索莱姆丛编》(Spicil. Solesm.) I. 15及下页。——萨尔蒙德 (Salmond) 的英译本载于克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚前教父文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第xx卷（1871年），第161–266页。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Eusebius)：《教会史》(H. E.) III. 28；VI. 41、45、46；VII. 2、4、7、9、11、22、24、26、27、28。亚他那修 (Athanasius)：《论狄奥尼修的意见》(De Sent. Dionys.)。哲罗姆 (Hieronym.)：《名人传》(De Fir. ill.) 69。

(III.) Th. 弗斯特 (Th. Förster)：《论亚历山大主教大狄奥尼修的教义与见解》(De Doctrina et Sententiis Dionysii Magni Episcopi Alex.)，柏林，1865年；以及1871年《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für hist. Theol.) 中的文章。迪特里希博士 (Dr. Dittrich，罗马天主教徒)：《亚历山大的大狄奥尼修》(Dionysius der Grosse von Alexandrien.)，布赖斯高的弗赖堡，1867年（130页）。魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书第2版，第III卷，第61页第5行及下文。韦斯科特 (Westcott)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 第I卷，第850页及下页。

亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alexandria)——如此称呼，是为了区别于同时代的罗马的狄奥尼修——号称“大狄奥尼修”，³⁰³约于公元190年出生，³⁰⁴父母是外邦人。他受的教育原是为了从事世俗职业，财富与声名的前景十分光明；但他考察了基督教的主张，并在奥利金的引导下归信，此后始终忠于这位老师。他与行神迹者贵格利并列，争享这位伟大教师首席门徒的荣誉；然而，贵格利被认为预先表达了尼西亚的三位一体教义，狄奥尼修的正统性却受到争议。他于233年成为奥利金在教理学校的助手，并在赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas) 死后，于248年成为亚历山大主教。在德修 (Decius) 治下的猛烈逼迫期间（249–251年），他逃离当地，因此像居普良 (Cyprian) 一样，被人怀疑怯懦。在瓦勒良 (Valerian) 治下的逼迫中（247年），他被带到长官面前，随后遭到放逐，但他仍从流放之地指导自己的教会。加里恩努斯 (Gallienus) 即位后，他获准归来（260年）。他于265年去世。

他的晚年受到战争、饥荒和瘟疫的搅扰，他在263年的复活节通函中，对此作了生动的叙述。³⁰⁵他写道：“现今的时日，看来并不适宜庆祝节期……一切都充满眼泪，人人都在哀恸；由于已经死去和仍在垂死的人数众多，全城每天都能听见呻吟……没有一家不死一个人的……此后，战争和饥荒接踵而至，这些苦难是我们与异教徒一同忍受的；但他们加给我们的那些苦难，却只有我们独自承担……然而，我们在基督单单赐给我们的平安中欢喜……我们大多数弟兄，因着极大的爱心和深情，不顾惜自己，彼此扶持，不断照料病人，无所畏惧、毫不间断地服侍他们的需要，并在基督里医治他们。”相反，异教徒却把病人拒之门外，或将他们半死不活地扔到街上。据居普良记载，在施行逼迫的加卢斯 (Gallus) 统治期间，迦太基 (Carthage) 于252年瘟疫肆虐之时，也表现出同样舍己的仁爱，与异教徒的自私形成鲜明对照。

狄奥尼修积极参与了他那个时代有关基督论、千禧年论和教会纪律的争论，在这些争论中表现出温和、乐于让步的友善精神，以及处理教会事务的实际才干，但也显出缺乏独立性和一贯性。他反对撒伯流主义，却走到了三神论 (tritheism) 的边缘；但在与立场更坚定、更正统的罗马的狄奥尼修通信时，他修正了自己的观点。对于他播下阿里乌主义 (Arianism) 种子的指控，亚他那修则维护了他的正统性。他希望坚持奥利金的基督论，而教会却正向尼西亚的信仰定式推进。不过，亚他那修的叙述中，没有任何内容暗示对罗马至上权的承认。他在基督论方面最后的言论，是一封论撒摩撒他的保罗之异端的信；他因故未能出席264年的安提阿会议 (Synod of Antioch)，该会议谴责并罢黜了保罗。他与奥利金一样，拒绝千禧年论的观念，并劝服尼波斯 (Nepos) 及其追随者放弃这些观念；但他否认《启示录》出自使徒之手，将它归于那位是否确实存在尚有疑问的“长老约翰”。他在教会纪律方面持温和见解，敦促诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 温柔对待失足者，并维护教会的和平。在司提反 (Stephen) 与居普良关于异端洗礼有效性的争论中，他也劝双方保持克制，尽管他赞同较为宽容的罗马理论。

狄奥尼修写过许多书信和论著，涉及解经、护教论争及禁欲等主题，但只有少量残篇保存下来，大多见于优西比乌的著作。主要著作有《传道书注释》与《路加福音注释》；《驳撒伯流》(Against Sabellius，基督论著作)；《论自然》(On Nature，哲学著作)；《论应许》(On the Promises，反对千禧年论)；《论殉道》(On Martyrdom)。他比较了第四福音书与《启示录》的文体，以否认两书出自同一作者；但他只看见差异，没有看见内在的统一。³⁰⁶韦斯科特说：“狄奥尼修的所有残篇，都值得仔细研读。其中无不洋溢着他在实际生活中所表现的同情心与宽宏胸怀。”

希腊教会于10月3日纪念狄奥尼修，罗马教会则于11月17日纪念他。

§ 191. 尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯

(I.) 残篇见劳思 (Routh)：《圣文遗存》(Rel. Sacr.) II. 221–509。亦见加兰迪 (Gallandi)，第II卷，以及米涅 (Migne)《希腊教父集》(Patr. Gr.)，第X卷，第35–108栏。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Eusebius)：《教会史》(H. E.) VI. 31。哲罗姆 (Jerome)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.) 63。苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(H. E.) II. 35。佛提乌 (Photius)：《书库》(Bibl.) 34。

(III.) 法布里修斯 (Fabricius)：《希腊文献志》(Bibl. Gr.) IV. 240（哈勒斯〔Harles〕编）。G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) I. 53–57。Ad. 哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书第2版，VII. 296–298。另见保利 (Pauly)《实用百科全书》(Real-Encykl.) V. 501及下页；尼古拉伊 (Nicolai)《希腊文学史》(Griech. Lit. Gesch.) II. 584；以及史密斯 (Smith)《希腊罗马人物传记辞典》(Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biogr.) I. 56及下页。

尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯 (Julius Africanus)³⁰⁷ 是第一位基督教编年史家和通史家，也是俄利根 (Origen) 一位年长的朋友。他于第二世纪上半叶住在巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的以马忤斯 (Emmaus，又名尼哥波利〔Nicopolis〕)，³⁰⁸ 曾游历亚历山大 (Alexandria)，在那里听赫拉克拉斯 (Heraclas) 讲学，也到过埃德萨 (Edessa)、亚美尼亚 (Armenia) 和弗吕家 (Phrygia)；又曾奉派出使罗马，为重建已遭毁坏的以马忤斯而请命（221年）。他约于公元240年高龄去世。据我们所知，他不是教牧人员，而是一位哲学家，在归信后继续从事自己喜爱的研究，并使之有益于教会。他可能做过长老，但肯定不是主教。³⁰⁹ 他是优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的先驱；后者在其《编年史》(Chronicle) 中大量采用了他的学术成果，却几乎没有给予他应得的承认，尽管称他的编年著作为“一部极其精确、用功甚勤的作品”。他通晓希伯来文。苏格拉底 (Socrates) 就学识而言，将他与亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和俄利根并列。

他的主要著作是一部五卷本编年史，始于创世（公元前5499年），终于221年，即埃拉伽巴路斯 (Elagabalus) 在位第四年。这部著作为中世纪的世界史和教会史编纂奠定了基础。我们尚存有相当多的残篇，并可借助优西比乌的《编年史》将其部分复原。要恰当地评价它的价值，就必须比迄今所做的更充分地考察拜占庭及东方教会的编年史。早期作者为反驳异教徒指责基督教是新兴宗教，着意证明它的古老，将其追溯至摩西和众先知，他们都早于希腊的哲学家和诗人。但阿非利加努斯首次尝试系统编写神圣史与世俗史的编年史。他以居鲁士 (Cyrus) 即位为固定基点，将其定于第55届奥林匹亚纪年的第1年（Olymp. 55, 1），然后在神圣史中向前逆推，算出从出埃及至七十年被掳期结束、即居鲁士元年，共有1237年。他采用《七十士译本》的年代体系，将出埃及定于创世纪年（A. M.）3707年，并算出从出埃及至所罗门共有740年。他将主的降生定于创世纪年5500年，比我们所用的狄奥尼修纪元早10年；但他只给主公开传道的事工留下一年，因此将钉十字架定于创世纪年5531年。他把救主在世的31年与玛土撒拉的969年相补，凑成整数。他将但以理的七十个七理解为490个太阴年，相当于475个儒略年。他认为钉十字架时的黑暗是神迹，因为满月时不可能发生日食。

阿非利加努斯的另一部著作名为《绣带》(Cesti，Κεστοὶ^*)，或称《斑斓的腰带》，是一种包罗万象的摘录集，杂收地理、博物、医学、农业、战争及其他世俗题材的知识。如今仅存残篇。有人因其内容属世俗性质，便否认它出于他的手笔，这是没有必要的；此书原是献给皇帝亚历山大·塞韦鲁斯 (Alexander Severus) 的。

优西比乌提及阿非利加努斯的两篇短论：一篇是致俄利根的信，“他在信中表示怀疑《但以理书》中苏撒拿 (Susanna) 的故事，认为它仿佛是一篇伪托虚构之作”；另一篇是“致阿里斯提德 (Aristides) 的信，讨论《马太福音》与《路加福音》中基督家谱所谓的差异，他根据祖先传下来的记载，极其清楚地证明两位福音书作者的记述是一致的”。

致俄利根的信至今尚存，在古代教会文献为数不多的高等批评实例中占有显著地位。他着重指出苏撒拿故事本身的不合情理之处，希伯来文正典并未收录此篇，其文体与正典《但以理书》不同，以及其中有一处希腊文的双关语，表明它原是用希腊文而非希伯来文写成的。俄利根长篇大论地试图反驳这些异议，他的论据之一是：基督徒若为求得未受掺杂的圣经而向犹太人乞求，实在有失身份。

致阿里斯提德论家谱的信，假定马太所列的是我主血缘上的世系，路加所列的是法律上的世系，以此解决这个难题。此信仅存残篇，F. 施皮塔 (F. Spitta) 最近已据此将它重构。³¹⁰

§ 192. 希腊教会的次要神学家

第三世纪有一些神学家，在当时声望甚高，大多来自埃及，属于俄利根学派，值得略加介绍，尽管他们的著作历经岁月摧残，只有少数残篇留存下来。

I. 赫拉克拉斯与他的兄弟普鲁塔克 (Plutarch，后来殉道)，是俄利根最早一批杰出的归信者和学生，年纪都比他们的老师大。赫拉克拉斯甚至比俄利根更早在阿摩尼乌斯·萨卡斯 (Ammonius Saccas) 门下研究新柏拉图主义哲学。他被任命为俄利根的助手，后来继任他在教理学校的职务。俄利根那位心怀嫉妒的仇敌德米特里乌 (Demetrius) 死后，赫拉克拉斯获选为亚历山大的主教，在这一高位上任职十六年（公元233–248年）。对于他的治理和著述，我们一无所知。他要么没有接受俄利根的思辨见解，要么审慎地将这些见解隐藏起来；至少，他没有采取任何行动，使老师得以从流放中归来。他的继任者是大狄奥尼修 (Dionysius the Great)。优西比乌说他“专心研究圣经，学识极其渊博，对哲学也非茫然无知”，但对于俄利根因异端之嫌受审期间及其后他对待俄利根的态度，却只字不提。³¹¹

在教理学校中继赫拉克拉斯和狄奥尼修之后任职的人，有提奥格诺斯图斯 (Theognostus)；优西比乌未提到他，但亚他那修 (Athanasius) 和佛提乌 (Photius) 曾提及。我们尚存有他论亵渎圣灵的一小段残篇，以及他的《纲要》(Hypotyposeis，意为概述) 中的若干摘录。³¹²
皮埃里乌斯 (Pierius) 大概在提奥纳斯 (Theonas，卒于300年) 任亚历山大主教期间继提奥格诺斯图斯之后任职，而且似乎活过了戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫时期。他是潘菲鲁斯 (Pamphilus) 的老师，被称为“小俄利根”。³¹³
潘菲鲁斯极为钦佩俄利根，是巴勒斯坦凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的长老和神学教师，在马克西米努斯 (Maximinus) 的逼迫中殉道（309年）。他本人并非著述家，却是推动基督教学术最慷慨、最有成效的人物之一。他创办神学院，建立藏书丰富的图书馆，为后世立下不可估量的功劳；他的学生兼友人优西比乌（因而被称为“Eusebius Pampili”，即“潘菲鲁斯的优西比乌”）、哲罗姆 (Jerome) 及许多其他人，都从中获得或增益了有用的知识。若没有这座图书馆，优西比乌的教会史所能提供的教益，就远不及今日所见。他亲手抄录有用的书籍，其中包括从俄利根《六栏合璧》抄出的《七十士译本》。³¹⁴ 他资助贫寒学生，分赠圣经。在狱中，他撰写了为俄利根辩护的著作，由优西比乌续成，共六卷；如今只存第一卷的鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 拉丁译本，哲罗姆曾指责鲁菲努斯蓄意篡改。此书写给被判往巴勒斯坦矿场服苦役的认信者，旨在根据俄利根本人的著作，尤其是论三位一体和基督位格的著作，使他们确信俄利根信仰的正统。³¹⁵

V. 彼得 (Peter) 是提奥纳斯的学生和继任者，自公元300年起任亚历山大的主教，经历了戴克里先逼迫的可怕岁月，并于311年奉马克西米努斯之命被斩首。他对重新接纳失足者持温和观点，又卷入米利提乌派 (Meletian) 的分裂；尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea) 曾对此事投入大量关注。吕科波利斯 (Lycopolis) 主教米利提乌 (Meletius) 趁彼得逃避逼迫之机，擅入其教区，自居埃及首席主教，但于306年因不服管辖而被彼得罢免。我们尚存彼得论教会纪律的十五条法规，以及少数讲道残篇；他在这些残篇中斥责俄利根关于灵魂先存及创世以前堕落的见解，认为这是异教观念，与圣经的创世记载相抵触。这一分歧似乎应使他列入俄利根的敌对者之中，但优西比乌全未提及此事，反而称赞他的敬虔、圣经知识和明智治理。³¹⁶

第三世纪末叶出身埃及利安托波利斯 (Leontopolis) 的希拉卡斯 (Hieracas，亦作 Hierax)，仅在较宽泛的意义上属于亚历山大学派，或许与该学派根本没有联系。埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 将他列为摩尼教 (Manichaean) 异端之一。无论如何，他是一个全然独特的人物，以学识广博、寓意解经和诗歌才华著称，而他古怪的禁欲主义尤其突出。他用希腊文和埃及文写成的著作，没有一部留存下来。据说，他否认堕落的历史真实性和身体复活，并宣称独身是通向救恩、或至少通向最高福乐境界的唯一可靠途径。他的追随者被称为希拉卡斯派 (Hieracitae)。³¹⁷

§ 193. 俄利根的反对者：美多迪乌

(I.) Μεθοδίου ἐπισκόπου καὶ μάρτυρος τὰ εὑρισκόμενα πάντα^*。收于加兰迪 (Gallandi)《古代教父文库》(Vet. Patr. Biblioth.)，第III卷；米涅 (Migne)《希腊教父集》(Patrol. Gr.)，第XVIII卷，第9–408栏；以及 A. 扬 (A. Jahn) 编本（《圣美多迪乌著作及柏拉图化的圣美多迪乌》〔S. Methodii Opera, et S. Methodius Platonizans〕，哈勒〔Hal.〕，1865年，2部分）。初版由孔贝菲 (Combefis) 于1644年刊行，1672年又出版了更完整的版本。英译本见克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚前教父文库》(Ante-Nicene Libr.)，第XIV卷（爱丁堡〔Edinb.〕，1869年）。

哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《名人传》(De Viris ill.) 83，以及他的若干书信和注释。埃皮法尼乌：《驳异端》(Haer.) 64。苏格拉底：《教会史》(H. E.) VI. 31。佛提乌：《书库》(Bibl.) 234–237。

优西比乌对美多迪乌 (Methodius) 只字不提，或许是因为他反对俄利根；而佛提乌或许出于同一原因，对他的关注反比对俄利根更多，并断言俄利根的《论首要原理》(De Principiis) 是亵渎之作，见《书库》(Bibl) 8。尼撒的贵格利 (Gregory of Nyssa)、阿瑞塔斯 (Arethas)、拜占庭的利昂提乌 (Leontius Byzantius)、马克西穆斯 (Maximus)、《罗马殉道者录》(Martyrologium Romanum，XIV. Kal. Oct.，即9月18日) 及《希腊圣徒月录》(Menologium Graecum，ad diem 20 Junii，即6月20日条)，都以敬意提及他。

(III.) 利奥·阿拉提乌斯 (Leo Allatius)：《论诸美多迪乌的著作》(Diatribe de Methodiorum Scriptis)，收于他1656年所编的《会饮篇》(Convivium)。法布里修斯 (Fabric.)：《希腊文献志》(Bibl. Gr.)，哈勒斯 (Harles) 编，第VII卷，第260页及后。W. 默勒 (W. Möller)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，IX. 724–726。（他特别讨论美多迪乌与俄利根的关系。）G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，III. 909–911。

德米特里乌反对俄利根，主要出于个人感情，并无神学上的意义。然而，他至少以维护正统的热忱为借口；在后来的反对者那里，这一动机则占了首要地位。早在第三世纪，美多迪乌便是如此。他为正统信仰而与俄利根争战，可称为埃皮法尼乌的先驱；但两人有所不同：美多迪乌温和得多，而且在其他方面，他似乎既钦佩柏拉图 (Plato)，模仿其著作的戏剧形式，也钦佩俄利根，追随其寓意解经的方法。他站在基督教实在论的立场上，反对这位亚历山大教师的思辨唯心论。

美多迪乌（亦称尤布利乌〔Eubulius〕）先任奥林波斯 (Olympus) 主教，后任帕塔拉 (Patara) 主教（两城均位于小亚细亚南部沿海的吕基亚〔Lycia〕省），于311年或更早，在戴克里先逼迫期间殉道。³¹⁸

他的主要著作是《会饮篇》，又名《十童女的筵席》(Banquet of Ten Virgins)。³¹⁹ 这是一篇赞美自愿守贞之益处与福分的颂词，文辞雄辩，却冗长而夸张。他称守贞为“超乎自然的伟大、奇妙而荣耀之事”，又称之为“最好、最高尚的生活方式”。在基督（ἀρχιπάρθενος^*）以前，世人并不知道这种生活。起初，人获准娶姊妹为妻，随后是一夫多妻，再进一步是一夫一妻，并实行节制；但完全的境界乃是为基督的国守独身，正如他在《马太福音》19:12中所作的奥秘暗示、保罗在《哥林多前书》7:1、7、34、40中的劝勉，以及《启示录》14:1–4中的经文所表明的；在那里，“十四万四千童身之人”与其他数不清的圣徒群众（7:9）有所区别。

这部著作的文学形式颇为有趣。十童女自然是受福音书中比喻的启发。《会饮篇》的构思与对话形式借自柏拉图 (Plato)；柏拉图颂扬爱欲之神厄洛斯 (Eros)，美多迪乌则颂扬童贞。美多迪乌以尤布利奥斯 (Eubulios) 和尤布洛因 (Eubuloin)（即他自己）与童女格雷戈里翁 (Gregorion) 之间的一段简短对话开篇。格雷戈里翁曾参加在阿瑞忒 (Arete)（即人格化的德行）的园中举行的十童女筵席，并向他转述这些童女依次发表的十篇赞美贞洁的演说。筵席结束时，得胜的童女之首忒克拉 (Thecla)（伪经中圣保罗的同伴）站在阿瑞忒右边，开始歌唱一首贞洁颂歌，童女们则以反复吟唱的叠句应和：

“新郎啊，我为你持守纯洁，

手执燃着的火炬，前去迎接你。”³²⁰

随后是尤布利奥斯与格雷戈里翁之间作为结语的对话，讨论不知情欲的贞洁，是否胜于感受到情欲之力而又战胜它的贞洁；换言之，一个没有对手的摔跤者，是否胜于一个面对众多强敌、不断与之争战而不被击败的摔跤者。两人一致将桂冠授予后者，然后便去“照料外在的人”，打算次日再继续这场精微的讨论。

童女们长篇大论地讨论性贞洁的优点，其趣味与道德性至少从现代文明的立场来看，大有可疑；但这种热烈赞扬贞洁、直至完全禁欲的态度，却完全符合教父们盛行的禁欲主义，俄利根也包括在内；他以违反自然的暴力行为，使自己摆脱了肉欲的试探。

《论复活》(On the Resurrection) 同样采用对话形式，埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 和佛提乌 (Photius) 保存了其中的大段摘录。此书针对俄利根及其有关创造、先存和复活身体非物质性的观点。代表正统的发言者（尤布利奥斯和奥克森提奥斯〔Auxentios〕）主张：灵魂若无身体便不能犯罪；身体不是灵魂的桎梏，而是其不可分离的伴侣，既可为善，也可为恶的工具；大地不会毁灭，而要得以洁净，转变为复活圣徒的蒙福居所。在《论受造之物》(On Things Created)³²¹ 一书中，他驳斥俄利根关于世界永恒的观点；俄利根认为，要把上帝理解为全能的创造者与统治者，以及永不改变的存在者，就必须持这一观点。

《论自由意志的对话》(Dialogue On Free Will)³²² 讨论物质的起源，与另一部论述同一题目的著作（περὶ τῆς ὕλης^*）极为相似；优西比乌摘录了后者的一段文字，并将它归于第二世纪末的作家马克西穆斯 (Maximus)。³²³

哲罗姆提及的美多迪乌其他著作有：《驳波菲利》(Against Porphyry，10,000行)；《创世记注释》和《雅歌注释》；《论交鬼的妇人》(De Pythonissa)（论隐多珥的巫妇，反对俄利根所持的观点，即撒母耳以法术召出她时，被置于撒但权下）。另有一篇《棕枝主日讲道》和一篇《论十字架讲道》也被归于他名下。不过，教父时期的作家中，有好几位名叫美多迪乌。

§ 194. 安提阿的路吉安

(I.) 路吉安 (Lucianus)：《残篇》(Fragmenta)，载劳思 (Routh)，《圣教文献遗珍》(Rel. s.)，IV. 3–17。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，VIII. 13；IX. 6（另见鲁菲努斯〔Rufinus〕的优西比乌《教会史》，IX. 6）。哲罗姆 (Hier.)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，77，及其他著作。苏格拉底 (Socrat.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，II. 10。索佐门 (Sozom.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 5。埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphan.)：《锚定之人》(Ancoratus)，第33章。狄奥多勒 (Theodor.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，I. 3。菲洛斯托尔吉乌斯 (Philostorgius)：《教会史》(H. E.)，II. 14、15。金口约翰：《路吉安颂讲》(Hom. in Lucian)（载蒙福孔编《全集》〔Opera ed. Montfaucon〕，第II卷，第524页及下页；米涅〔Migne〕《希腊教父集》〔“Patr. Gr.”〕，I. 520及后）。吕纳尔 (Ruinart)：《殉道者行传》(Acta Mart.)，第503页及下页。

(III.) 《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanct.)，1月，VII. 357及下页。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baron.)：《编年史》(Ann.)，311年条。蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)、凯夫 (Cave)、法布里修斯 (Fabricius)、尼安德 (Neander)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、赫费勒 (Hefele)（《大公会议史》〔Conciliengesch.〕，第I卷）的著作中均有简短记述。哈纳克 (Harnack)：《殉道者路吉安》(Luc. der Märt.)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)，VIII.（1881年），第767–772页。J. T. 斯托克斯 (J. T. Stokes)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith & Wace)，III.，748和749页。

关于他的文本校勘工作，参见各部批判性的圣经导论。

I. 路吉安 (Lucian) 是安提阿 (Antioch) 一位杰出的长老，在马克西明 (Maximin) 再度发动的戴克里先逼迫中殉道。关于他的生平，所知甚少。他从安提阿被押送至当时皇帝驻跸的尼科米底亚 (Nicomedia)，在审判官面前英勇地承认信仰，并于狱中受酷刑而死（311年）。安提阿在1月7日纪念他。他的敬虔属于严厉的禁欲类型。

他身后因被怀疑信仰不纯正而蒙上阴影。优西比乌两次提及他及其光荣的殉道，却对他的神学见解保持沉默。亚历山大的亚历山大 (Alexander of Alexandria) 在321年的一封通函中，将他与撒摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samosata) 并列，并认定他须对阿里乌派异端负责；亚历山大还说，在多姆努斯 (Domnus)、提迈乌斯 (Timaeus) 和居里鲁斯 (Cyrillus) 任主教期间，他被逐出教会，或一直与教会疏离（ἀποσυνάγωγος ἔμεινε^*）；这暗示他的分裂状态在死前已经结束。对他及其追随者的指控是：他否认逻各斯 (Logos) 的永恒性，也否认基督具有人的灵魂（认为逻各斯取代了理性灵魂的位置）。阿里乌 (Arius) 及阿里乌派都称他为自己的老师。另一方面，伪亚他那修 (Pseudo-Athanasius) 称他为伟大而圣洁的殉道者，金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 也于387年1月1日为他宣讲了一篇颂词。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 为他的正统性辩护，其他天主教学者则否认这一点。³²⁴ 有些人区分出两位路吉安，一位正统，一位异端；但这是毫无根据的假设。

这些相互矛盾的记载很容易调和，只须假定路吉安是一位批判研究学者，对于三位一体和基督论持有某些独特见解，与后来的尼西亚正统信仰不合，却以英勇的认信和殉道洗净了一切污点。³²⁵

那篇以他的名字流传、在他死后发现的信经，就其所论及的内容而言，是完全正统的。公元341年，它与另外三篇类似的信经一同提交安提阿会议，意在取代《尼西亚信经》。³²⁶ 它类似于神行者贵格利 (Gregorius Thaumaturgus) 的信经，严格持守三位一体，承认耶稣基督“为上帝的儿子，独生的上帝，³²⁷ 万物都是借着他造的；他在万世以前由父所生，是出于上帝的上帝，出于完全者的完全者，出于独一者的独一者，出于完美者的完美者，万王之王，万主之主，活的道、智慧、生命、真光、道路、真理、复活、牧人、门，不改变、不变易，是神性永不改变的样式，无论在父的本质、旨意、能力或荣耀上皆然；他是首生的，在一切受造之物以先，³²⁸ 太初与上帝同在的神圣逻各斯，正如福音书所说：‘道就是上帝’（约翰福音1:1），‘万物是借着他造的’（第3节），并且‘万有也靠他而立’（歌罗西书1:17）；他在末后的日子从上降下，照圣经所记，由童女所生，成为人，作上帝与人之间的中保，等等。”³²⁹
路吉安 (Lucianus) 也因校订《七十士译本》和希腊文新约的文本而闻名。哲罗姆提到，在他那个时代，有些抄本被称为“exemplaria Lucianea”（路吉安抄本）；但在别处，他谈及路吉安以及埃及主教赫西基乌斯 (Hesychius)（在同一领域卓有成就）的文本时，却颇有贬意。由于缺乏确切资料，不可能判定其校勘工作的价值。他的希伯来文学识尚不确定，因此我们也不知道，他校订《七十士译本》时是否依据原文。³³⁰

至于新约，他很可能对叙利亚修订本（如果可以这样称呼）作了重大贡献；金口约翰和后来的希腊教父使用的正是这一修订本，它也是textus receptus（公认经文）的基础。³³¹

§ 195. 安提阿学派

基恩 (Kihn，罗马天主教徒)：《安提阿学派的意义》(Die Bedeutung der antioch. Schule)。魏森堡 (Weissenburg)，1856年。

C. 霍尔农 (C. Hornung)：《安提阿学派》(Schola Antioch.)。Neostad. ad S.，1864年。

约斯·赫尔根勒特 (Jos. Hergenröther，枢机主教)：《安提阿学派》(Die Antioch. Schule)。维尔茨堡 (Würzb.)，1866年。

迪斯特尔 (Diestel)：《基督教会中的旧约史》(Gesch. des A. Test. in, der christl. Kirche)。耶拿 (Jena)，1869年（第126–141页）。

W. 默勒 (W. Möller)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，I. 454–457。

路吉安被认为是安提阿神学派的创始人，该学派在第四世纪获得了更充分的发展。他与友人多罗提乌 (Dorotheus) 共享这一荣誉；后者同样是安提阿的长老，优西比乌高度赞扬他是一位通晓希伯来文的圣经学者。³³² 但这一学派真正的创始人是大数主教狄奥多罗斯 (Diodorus，约公元379–394年在任) 和摩普绥提亚主教狄奥多尔 (Theodorus，393–428年在任)，二人先前都是安提阿的长老。

安提阿学派并不像亚历山大教理学校那样，是一所有教师连续相承的正规机构，而是一种神学倾向，更确切地说，是一种以安提阿为中心、独具特色的释经学与解经类型。其特点是重视文本校订，依照语言的用法和作者的处境，紧守明白、自然的含义，并恰当地看待人的因素。换言之，它的解经是语法的、历史的，有别于亚历山大学派的寓意法。然而，在文本校勘方面，路吉安仍步俄利根的后尘。安提阿学派也并非不顾圣经的属灵意义和神圣因素。无疑，语法—历史解经法是理解圣经以及任何其他书籍唯一稳妥而健全的基础；对于寓意法肆意驰骋、往往以强加己意代替阐释经文的做法，它是一种有益的约束。但在不同的人手中，随着解释者精神的不同，它也可能导致不同的结果。阿里乌派和聂斯托利派 (Nestorians) 声称自己源出路吉安及其学派，或与之具有亲缘关系；然而，同一学派也产生了教父中首屈一指的解经家金口约翰，他是路吉安和狄奥多罗斯的颂扬者，也是摩普绥提亚的狄奥多尔的朋友与同窗。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 也承袭了同一路线。

聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 被定罪之后，安提阿神学继续在尼西比斯 (Nisibis) 和埃德萨 (Edessa) 的聂斯托利派中得到研习。

附注

纽曼枢机主教 (Cardinal Newman) 尚为圣公会信徒时，在《第四世纪的阿里乌派》(Arians of the Fourth Century，第414页) 一书中，认定叙利亚圣经批判学派须对阿里乌派异端负责，并笼统地主张：“神秘解经与正统信仰必将同存同亡。”但赫尔根勒特枢机主教同样是一位忠实的天主教徒，学问却更胜一筹；他恰当地分辨了运用与滥用，并就安提阿与亚历山大两学派，以及批判与神秘两种解经方法的关系，作出如下公允而明辨的论述，一位新教历史学家也能完全赞同。（《普通教会史手册》〔Handbuch der allgem. Kirchengeschichte〕，弗赖堡〔Freiburg i. B.〕，第2版，1879年，第I卷，第281页。）

“安提阿学派不久便达到了亚历山大学派的辉煌，甚至超过了它。两者各有独特的发展、立场和方法，因而能够在许多方面彼此补充；但也正因其差异，很容易彼此争斗，并偏离教会的教义。亚历山大学派显出一种思辨直观、倾向神秘的趋向，安提阿学派则以逻辑反思、全然冷静的理智倾向为主。前者紧密依附柏拉图哲学，主要是希腊化犹太人斐洛 (Philo) 所赋予它的形式；安提阿学派起初信奉一种倾向斯多葛主义的折衷主义，后来则归向亚里士多德学派，后者严密的辩证法完全契合他们的精神。因此，亚历山大学派主要致力于圣经的寓意—神秘解释，安提阿学派则致力于字面、语法—逻辑及历史的解释，但并不因此全然否认神秘意义，尤其不否认旧约的预表。俄利根派试图证明，单纯的字面意义有所不足，寓意解释实属必要，因为许多经文的字面会产生错误、矛盾以及有损上帝尊严的意思；他们在这里的错误，在于过度运用寓意法，并把属于字面意义的比喻表达与神秘解释混为一谈。他们常使圣经叙事的历史内容化为乌有，以为必须在其外壳之下寻求隐藏的内核。与此相关，亚历山大学派着重强调神圣事物中超越理性、不可言说和奥秘的因素；安提阿学派则首先强调教义中合乎理性、契合人类心智的因素，力求证明基督教是能满足人类思想的真理。然而，安提阿学派杰出的教师追求这一目标时，决不意在否认教会教义的超自然性质与奥秘；他们大多承认这些，金口约翰和狄奥多勒便是如此。但个别学者在努力使信仰教义易于理解和领会时，却可能歪曲并毁坏其内容。”

§ 196. 德尔图良与非洲学派

参较§109，第415页论孟他努主义的文献。

(I.)《德尔图良现存著作全集》(Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia)。弗兰茨·厄勒 (Franc. Oehler) 编。莱比锡 (Lips.)，1853年，3卷。第3卷收有尼古拉·勒努里 (Nic. Le Nourry)、莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)、内塞尔特 (Noesselt)、塞姆勒 (Semler)、凯伊 (Kaye) 所撰《德尔图良生平与著作》(De Vita et Scriptis Tert.) 诸论文。较早的版本有：贝阿图斯·雷纳努斯 (Beatus Rhenanus) 编，巴塞尔 (Bas.)，1521年；帕梅利乌斯 (Pamelius) 编，安特卫普 (Antwerp)，1579年；里加尔提乌斯 (Rigaltius)〔里戈 (Rigault)〕编，巴黎 (Par.)，1634年，及威尼斯 (Venet.)，1744年；塞姆勒编，哈雷 (Halle)，1770–3年，6卷；奥伯蒂尔 (Oberthür) 编，1780年；利奥波德 (Leopold) 编，收入格尔斯多夫 (Gersdorf) 的《拉丁教父选集》(Biblioth. patrum Eccles. Latinorum selecta) 第IV–VII卷，莱比锡，1839–41年；以及米涅 (Migne) 编，巴黎，I，1884年。赖费尔沙伊德 (Reifferscheid) 编的新版本即将收入维也纳的《拉丁教会作家集》(Corpus Scriptorum Eccles. Lat.)。

P. 霍姆斯 (P. Holmes) 等人的英译本，收入《尼西亚前基督教文库》(Ante-Nicene Christian Library)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1868年及后，4卷。K. A. H. 凯尔纳 (K. A. H. Kellner) 的德译本，科隆 (Köln)，1882年，2卷。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. G.)，II. 2、25；III. 20；V. 5。哲罗姆 (Jerome)：《名人传》(De Viris Ill.)，第53章。

(III.) 尼安德 (Neander)：《反诺斯替者：德尔图良的精神及其著作导论》(Antignosticus, Geist des Tertullianus u. Einleitung in dessen Schriften)。柏林 (Berl.)，1825年；第2版，1849年。

J. 凯伊 (J. Kaye)：《以德尔图良著作为阐释材料的第二、第三世纪教会史》(Eccles. Hist. of the second and third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian)。第3版，伦敦 (Lond.)，1845年。

卡尔·黑塞尔贝格 (Carl Hesselberg)：《从德尔图良著作阐述其教义》(Tertullian’s Lehre aus seinen Schriften entwickelt)。第1部：《生平与著作》(Leben und Schriften)。多尔帕特 (Dorpat)，1848年（136页）。

P. 戈特瓦尔德 (P. Gottwald)：《论德尔图良的孟他努主义》(De Montanismo Tertulliani)。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1863年。

赫尔曼·伦施 (Hermann Rönsch)：《德尔图良的新约》(Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1871年（731页）。依据德尔图良的著作，重构古拉丁文新约译本的文本。

阿德·埃伯特 (Ad. Ebert)：《基督教拉丁文学史》(Gesch. der Christl. lat. Lit.)。莱比锡，1874年及后，第I卷，第24–41页。

A. 豪克 (A. Hauck)：《德尔图良的生平与著作》(Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften)，埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1877年（410页）。附有从其全部著作中审慎选取的摘录。

(IV.) 关于德尔图良著作的年代，参见内塞尔特：《德尔图良著作的确切年代与教义》(De vera aetate et doctrina Scriptorum Tertull.)，收入厄勒编本第III卷，第340–619页；乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)：《德尔图良年代学基础》(Fundamenta Chronologica Tertullianeae)，哥廷根 (Göttingen)，1852年；邦韦奇 (Bonwetsch)：《按写作年代排列的德尔图良著作》(Die Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfassung)，波恩 (Bonn)，1879年，89页；哈纳克 (Harnack)：《论德尔图良著作的年代》(Zur Chronologie der Schriften Tertullians)，莱比锡，1878年；内尔德亨 (Noeldechen)：《德尔图良著作的写作年代》(Abfassungszeit der Schriften Tertullians)，莱比锡，1888年。

(V.) 关于专门问题：厄宁格 (oehninger)：《德尔图良及其复活论》(Tertullian und seine Auferstehungslehre)，奥格斯堡 (Augsb.)，1878年，34页。F. J. 施密特 (F. J. Schmidt)：《论德尔图良的拉丁文》(De Latinitate Tertutliani)，埃尔朗根 (Erlang.)，1877年。M. 克卢斯曼 (M. Klussmann)：《德尔图良研究》(Curarum Tertullianearum)，第I、II部 (part. I et II)，哈雷，1881年。G. R. 豪希尔德 (G. R. Hauschild)：《德尔图良的心理学》(Tertullian’s Psychologie)，美因河畔法兰克福 (Frankf. a. M.)，1880年，78页。同一作者：《德尔图良构词的原则与手段》(Die Grundsätze u. Mittel der Wortbildung bei Tertullian)，莱比锡，1881年，56页。路德维希 (Ludwig)：《德尔图良的伦理学》(Tert’s Ethik)，莱比锡，1885年。另有黑费勒 (Hefele)、恩格尔哈特 (Engelhardt)、利奥波德、沙弗 (Schaff，载于赫尔佐格〔Herzog〕的著作)、埃伯特、科尔贝格 (Kolberg) 所撰关于德尔图良的专题论著。

这一时期的西方教会，在学术成果方面远不如东方教会丰硕。使徒时期的教会主要具有犹太性质，尼西亚前的教会具有希腊性质，尼西亚后的教会则具有罗马性质。罗马教会本身起初也主要具有希腊性质，其最早的作家——革利免 (Clement)、黑马 (Hermas)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)——完全用希腊文写作。拉丁基督教直到第二世纪末才开始在文学中出现，而且不是在意大利，而是在北非；不是在罗马，而是在迦太基 (Carthage)；尤具特色的是，其开创者不是归信的思辨哲学家，而是务实的律师和修辞学家。这种文学并非逐渐展开，而是一出现便带有明确而清晰的印记，具有强烈的现实倾向。北非也给了西方教会一部根本性的书——最早的拉丁文圣经译本，即所谓《意大利译本》(Itala)；它成为哲罗姆《通俗译本》(Vulgata) 的基础，后者至今仍是罗马教会公认的标准圣经。不过，在哲罗姆以前，西方可能已有数种圣经部分书卷的拉丁译本流传。

I. 德尔图良的生平

昆图斯·塞普提米乌斯·弗洛伦斯·德尔图良 (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) 是拉丁神学与教会语言之父，也是古代基督教最伟大的人物之一。关于他的生平，除从他自己的著作，以及哲罗姆《名人传》的简短记载中所得的资料之外，我们所知甚少。然而，像这位非洲教父这样，在著作中如此鲜明地留下个人印记的作家，实属罕见。在这一点以及其他方面，他都与圣保罗和马丁·路德 (Martin Luther) 相似。他约于150年生于罗马昔日的劲敌迦太基；他的父亲当时在非洲行省总督麾下，担任罗马军团的百夫长。他接受了广博的希腊—罗马教育；他的著作表明，他广泛熟悉历史、哲学、诗歌和古物研究的文献，也熟悉法律术语与辩护人的一切技巧。他似乎曾在迦太基或罗马投身政治及法庭雄辩之术。优西比乌称他为“精通罗马法律的人”，³³³许多人认为他就是《学说汇纂》(Pandects) 中若干片段的作者特尔提卢斯 (Tertyllus)，或德尔图良 (Tertullianus)。

直到三十岁或四十岁，他仍生活在异教的盲昧和放荡之中。³³⁴第二世纪末，他接受了基督教；究竟缘于何事，我们不得而知，但显然是出于最深切的确信，并倾注了他整个心灵的炽烈力量。从此，他以无畏的决断捍卫基督教，反对异教徒、犹太人和异端，并力求在生活上实行最严格的道德。他自己的话正可用在他身上：“Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani.”（“基督徒是后天成为的，不是生来就是的。”）他结了婚，并为我们描绘了一幅热情洋溢的基督徒家庭生活图景，我们前面已经提及；但由于他热衷于各种形式的舍己，便把独身看得更高，劝妻子若他先去世，就继续守寡，至少决不可嫁给不信的丈夫；后来，他甚至把再婚与奸淫等量齐观。他进入大公教会担任教职，³³⁵起初大概是在迦太基，也可能是在罗马；无论如何，他曾在罗马住过一段时间。³³⁶但他与亚历山大的革利免和俄利根 (Origen) 一样，终身未曾升至长老以上的职位。

数年后，即199至203年间，他加入了孟他努派 (Montanists)，这一派虽持正统信仰，却有清教主义倾向。哲罗姆把这一转变归于个人动机，认为是罗马教士的嫉妒和侮辱所致；他自己也曾受到这些教士的许多凌辱。³³⁷但德尔图良从一开始就倾向极端，尤其倾向道德上的严苛。毫无疑问，孟他努派对世界的彻底鄙弃、严格的禁欲主义、严厉的纪律、殉道热忱以及千禧年论，吸引了他；而罗马教会日益趋于世俗，则使他反感。就在这一时期，罗马教会在泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 和卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 领导下，公然庇护极为宽松的悔罪纪律，同时又曾支持反对孟他努派的普拉克西亚 (Praxeas) 所持的圣父受苦说谬误，虽然这种支持只是暂时的。因此，德尔图良以他惯常的讥讽口吻论到此人说：他在罗马做了魔鬼的两件工作，赶出了预言（孟他努派的预言），引进了异端（圣父受苦说）；驱逐了圣灵，把父钉在十字架上。³³⁸德尔图良此时攻击大公教会信徒，或按他常用的称呼，攻击“属魂的人”(psychicals)，其冷酷严厉，与他从前攻击异端时毫无二致。然而，孟他努派的偏离，更多在于道德和纪律，而非教义；德尔图良尽管敌视罗马，却始终热忱捍卫大公信仰，即使处于分裂的地位，仍写下了几部最有力的反异端著作，尤其是反对诺斯替派 (Gnostics) 的著作。事实上，作为神学家，他远远超越了这个狂热宗派；他的著作为它在教会内部赢得了重要地位和影响力，否则它断然无法达到这样的程度。

他以孟他努派长老和作家的身份在迦太基劳作，照哲罗姆所说，直到年老体衰时才去世。有人认为约在220年，另有人则认为迟至240年；因为他去世的确切时间与方式，都无从得知。他在非洲的追随者以“德尔图良派”(Tertullianists) 之名延续至第五世纪奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 的时代，或许处于严格意义的孟他努派与大公教会之间。认为他曾重返大公教会怀抱的说法，完全没有根据。

这位古代大公正统信仰最有力的捍卫者、崇尚高教会观念的居普良 (Cyprian) 的老师，竟是一个分裂者和罗马的对手，实在令人诧异。然而，他的天性中具有布匿人 (Punic) 性格那种热带般的炽烈与尖锐，也具有大胆独立的精神；他的故乡迦太基，曾凭着这种精神，经过一百多年的战争，³³⁹抵抗台伯河 (Tiber) 畔那座七丘之城日益兴起的势力。他真正代表了非洲教会；类似的对抗精神，不仅在多纳徒派 (Donatists) 中，而且在大公教会的主要拥护者中，也不断显露出来。居普良去世时，在异端洗礼的问题上仍与罗马不和；奥古斯丁尽管对大公信仰体系贡献卓著，却也因其反伯拉纠派的罪与恩典教义，成为福音派新教以及半新教性质的詹森主义 (Jansenism) 之父。

希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 与他有几处值得注意的相通之点。希波吕托与德尔图良同时代而年纪较轻，不过据我们所知，两人从未见过面。两人都是反对异端、捍卫大公正统信仰的勇士，却又都反对罗马。希波吕托曾指控两位教皇既犯异端，又放宽纪律；然而，由于他据称曾悔改并殉道（普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) 在将近二百年后如此记述），罗马教会将他列为圣徒；这位非洲教父虽然更为伟大，贡献也更大，却从未获此殊荣。

性格。德尔图良是一位罕见的天才，极具独创性，清新生动，却又棱角分明、激烈喧腾而性情古怪；他有炽烈的想象、尖锐的机智、敏锐的洞察、娴熟的论辩技巧，以及道德上的严肃认真，却缺少明晰、节制与均衡的发展。他不像山谷中平静清澈的河流，倒像泡沫翻腾的山洪。他虽真诚地努力克制自己，暴烈的性情却始终未能完全驯服。³⁴⁰他信念坚定，总是毫不迟疑地表明自己的信念，既无所畏惧，也不徇私情。

像几乎所有伟大人物一样，他的性格兼有奇异的矛盾。这又使我们想起路德 (Luther)；不过，这位宗教改革家丝毫没有这位非洲教父那种禁欲的阴郁与严苛，反而在巨大的精力之外，表现出后者全然不具备的亲切安详与孩童般的纯朴。德尔图良热情地论述福音那出于上帝的愚拙，并以一种崇高的轻蔑鄙视世界及其学术与艺术；然而，他的著作却是古代知识以及新颖、惊人而富有成果的思想的宝库。他称希腊哲学家为一切异端的始祖，并轻蔑地问道：“学园与教会有什么相干？基督与柏拉图 (Plato)——耶路撒冷与雅典——有什么相干？”他甚至毫不畏缩地以自己的这句名言侮辱上帝赐给人类最伟大的天然恩赐：“Credo quia absurdum est.”（“我信，因为它是荒谬的。”）然而，在他反对敌手时，理性却给予他不可估量的帮助。³⁴¹他以极大的力量和才智，维护教会权威与传统的原则，反对一切异端；然而，在成为孟他努派信徒以后，他又以同样的劲头，为自己争取个人判断与独立抗议的权利。³⁴²他深切感受到人性的败坏，以及道德重生的绝对必要；然而，他又宣称灵魂生来就是基督徒，除在基督里面以外，不能得着安息。他说：“灵魂的见证，既单纯，也同样真实；既为众人所有，也同样单纯；既自然，也同样为众人所有；既出于上帝，也同样自然。”他与和蔼可亲的俄利根恰成对照；后者的劲健不及他，学问却更渊博，眼界也更宽广。他采取最严格的超自然主义原则，却又是一位极其坚决的实在论者，甚至把形体归于上帝和灵魂，也就是说，赋予两者一种仿佛有形而可触的实体性；而那位唯心主义的亚历山大学者，则无论怎样以属灵的方式论说上帝，都觉得还不够，并且认为人的灵魂可以离开身体而存在，也可以先于身体而存在。德尔图良的神学围绕着保罗所阐明的罪与恩典这一重大对立展开，为拉丁教会的人论与救恩论开辟了道路；后来，与他思想相近、却更明晰、更沉静，也更审慎的同乡奥古斯丁，将这些教义发展起来。对于他的敌手，无论是异教徒、犹太人、异端，还是大公教会信徒，他都像路德一样，毫不宽容，也不留情面。他以善于曲辩的律师的机巧，使他们陷入自相矛盾，追逼他们直到每一个角落，用论据、诡辩、格言和讥讽将他们压倒，毫不留情地鞭挞驱赶他们，几乎总使他们显得可笑而可鄙。他的论战处处留下血迹。令人惊异的是，他竟未被异教徒杀害，也未被大公教会信徒逐出教会。

他的文体极富个性，与他的思想相称。其文字简劲、突兀、精练，多用警句，遒劲有力，富于形象，充满夸张、突然的转折、法律术语、非洲地方用语，或更确切地说，陈旧或粗俗的拉丁语表达。³⁴³其中充斥着拉丁化的希腊词和新造的表达，粗砺、多棱角而晦涩；有时如猛烈的火山喷发，宝石与渣滓奇异地混杂喷出；又如泡沫翻腾的山洪，从岩石悬崖上奔泻而下，席卷面前的一切。他强大的精神与形式搏斗，在自然思维的原始森林中闯出一条路来。他必须创制拉丁语的教会语言。³⁴⁴

简言之，在这位非凡人物身上，无论就智性还是道德而言，我们都看见一种新创造正在酝酿，却尚未完全摆脱混沌黑暗的束缚，进入清晰而优美的秩序。

附注

I. 德尔图良著作中的珠玑。

逼迫的哲理：

“Semen Est Sanguis Christianorum.”（“基督徒的血是种子。”）（Apol.，第50章。）

人的灵魂与基督教（为基督而造，却仍须重生）：

“Testimonium Animae Naturaliter. Christianae.”（“灵魂天然为基督徒的见证。”）（De Test. Anim.，第2章；参见§ 40，第120页所引诸段。）

“Fiunt, non, nascuntur Christiani.”（“基督徒是后天成为的，不是生来就是的。”）（Apol.，18；De Test. Anim.，1。）

基督是真理，而非习俗（反对传统主义）：

“Christus Veritas Est, Non Consuetudo.”（“基督是真理，而非习俗。”）（De Virg. vel，1。）

平信徒皆为祭司（反对排他性的圣职等级制度）：

“Nonne Et Laici Sacerdotes Sumus? ”（“我们这些平信徒不也是祭司吗？”）（De Exhort. Cast.，7。）

宗教自由是人不可剥夺的权利（反对强制与逼迫）：

“Humani Juris Et Naturalis Potestatis Est Unicuique Quod Putaverit Colere.”（“各人敬拜自己所认可的对象，是人的权利，也是天然的自由。”）（《致斯卡普拉》 (Ad Scap.)，2；比较 Apol.，14，以及§ 13，第35页所引诸段。）

鲍尔 (Baur) 博士（Kirchengesch.，I. 428）说：“值得注意的是，早期最古老的基督教护教士，在捍卫基督教信仰时，就已被引向新教的信仰与良心自由原则的申述”［我们还必须补充：公共敬拜的自由］，“以此作为宗教概念所固有的属性，反对他们的异教敌手。”随后，他引用德尔图良的话，认为他是第一个清楚表达这一原则的人。

对德尔图良其人及其著作的评价。

尼安德 (Neander)（Ch. Hist.，I. 683及下页，托里 (Torrey) 译本）：“德尔图良特别值得注意，既因为他是北非教会神学倾向的第一位代表，也因为他代表了孟他努派的思想方式。他的精神热烈而深邃，感情温暖而深厚；他倾向于将自己的全部心灵与力量投入所爱的对象，并严厉排斥一切与之不相干的事物。他拥有丰富而多样的知识积累；不过，这些知识是随意积聚的，未经系统整理。他的思想虽然深刻，却未能兼具逻辑上的清晰与冷静；支配他的是热烈而不受约束的想象，活动于感官形象的世界之中。他火一般的激烈性情，以及先前作为律师与修辞学家所受的训练，很容易使他陷入修辞上的夸张，尤其是在论战中。当他为自己确信真实的事业辩护时，我们常在他身上看见律师的样子：他所关心的，只是搜集一切有助于其主张的论据，而不问这些究竟是真正的论据，还是仅仅貌似可信的诡辩；在这类情形下，恰恰是他过于充沛的机智，有时使他偏离了对真理的纯朴感受。使此人成为特别值得基督教史家关注的现象的，必定是这样一个事实：基督教是赋予他生活与思想以灵感的灵魂；从基督教之中，一个全新而丰富的内在世界在他心中发展起来；然而，基督教的酵必须先渗透并彻底炼净那火热、大胆而又粗砺的天性。我们所发现的，是旧皮袋里的新酒；它在那里沾染的异味，很容易使缺乏经验的评判者感到困惑。德尔图良内心所有的，往往超过他所能表达的：充溢的心智苦于找不到适当的措辞。他必须为这新的属灵内容创造一种语言——而且是从粗陋的布匿拉丁语中创造出来——既没有逻辑与语法教育的帮助，又被自己热烈的天性催促着，在思想与感情的激流中向前奔涌。因此，他的措辞往往艰涩难解；但也正因此，他的表达方式具有独创而惊人的转折。也正因此，这位伟大的教会教师，兼具极大的才赋与极大的缺点，屡屡遭到误解，因为有些人无法亲近那寓居于如此笨拙形式之中的精神。”

哈泽 (Hase)（Kirchengesch.，第91页，第十版）：“拉丁教会原先几乎只有翻译作品，直到德尔图良出现。他在异教时期曾在罗马担任修辞教师与律师，拥有丰富的希腊学识，即使成为教父以后，也颇乐于展露；后来他在故乡迦太基担任长老。他性情严厉、阴郁而火热，以布匿拉丁语为基督教赢得了一种文学，其中，机敏的修辞、天赋与刻意雕琢并存的诙谐、对理想的感性把握、深厚的感情，以及法律式的理智见解，彼此角力。他为非洲教会提出了口号：基督说，我是真理，而不是传统。他高举灵魂深处的上帝意识；然而，他也是一个崇尚权威的人，以高傲的反讽，将福音的愚拙与同时代人的世俗智慧对立起来，将上帝神迹的不可置信与世俗的常识对立起来。他毫不犹豫地把别人的材料纳入自己的著作，并打上自己天才的印记。这些著作，一部分是论战性的，以大公信仰立场的最高自信，反对异教徒、犹太人和异端；另一部分则是造就性的；然而，前一类也含有造就的成分，后一类也含有为严肃的道德与纪律而论战的成分。”

豪克 (Hauck)（《德尔图良的生平与著作》 (Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften)，第1页）：“在拉丁基督教世界的作家中，德尔图良是最重要、最有趣的人物之一。他是拉丁神学的开创者，不仅在它的语言上打下自己的印记，也为它指明了一条长久遵循的道路。他的人格既令人倾慕，也同样令人反感；因为，谁能否认他在道德追求上的认真、精神的丰富与活泼、信念的坚定，以及雄辩的狂飙般力量呢？然而，同样不能忽视的是，他在一切事上都缺少分寸。他的形象毫无高贵之处；他并非没有怪诞，甚至也不乏卑俗。他的著作是他一生的纪念碑，所呈现的正是这样的他。他是一个不断处于争战之中的人；他的整个性格都带着这种生活的痕迹。”

赫尔根勒特 (Hergenröther) 枢机主教，是现今在世最杰出的罗马天主教教会史家（因为德林格 (Döllinger) 已于1870年被逐出教会）；他论德尔图良说（见其 Kirchengesch.，I. 168，第二版，1879年）：“他严厉而认真，常有尖刻的讥讽，语言简劲而晦涩，完全厌弃异教哲学，对罗马法则十分熟悉。他在众多著作中，为阐明教会教义作出了重要贡献；尽管后来转入孟他努派，后世的非洲作家，包括居普良，仍把他视为典范与老师。”

普雷桑塞 (Pressensé)（《殉道者与护教家》 (Martyrs and Apoloqists)，第375页）：“非洲民族为基督教贡献了它最雄辩的捍卫者；在他身上，这一种族的强烈激情与未经节制的热忱，固然得到了净化，却未被驯服。在早期，没有人的影响能与德尔图良相比；他的著作洋溢着一种永不衰竭的精神力量，永远不会陈旧，即使在今日，仍能使沉寂了十五个世纪的争论重新活现。我们必须到他自己的篇章中去寻找这个人；那些篇章至今仍燃烧着他的热忱，因他的激情而震颤，因为关于他个人生平的细节实在寥寥无几。这个人仿佛完全融入了作家之中，而这也是不难理解的，因为他的著作体现了他的整个灵魂。从未有人像他这样，将自己的全部道德生命注入书中，并借着自己的文字采取行动。”

§ 197. 德尔图良的著作

大约在190至220年间，德尔图良以两种语言展开了非凡的著述活动。他早期用希腊文写的书，以及部分拉丁文著作，已经散佚。现存著作大多篇幅短小，却数量众多，几乎涉及宗教生活的所有领域，生动地描绘了他当日教会的面貌。根据内证，他的大部分作品写于第三世纪的头二十五年，即他一生中的孟他努派时期；其中包括许多他反驳异端的最出色著作。然而，另一方面，那使他倾向孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的阴郁而严峻的道德观，即使在他最早的作品中，也已表现得相当强烈。³⁴⁵

他的著作可分为三类：护教性的；论战性或反异端的；伦理性或实践性的。此外，还可将那些明确以孟他努派立场反对大公教会信徒的论著，另列为第四类。我们在此只能提及最重要的作品：

在反对异教徒和犹太人的护教著作中，他为整个基督教世界申辩，因而值得整个基督教世界感激。其中最卓越的是《护教篇》 (Apologeticus，或 Apologeticum)。³⁴⁶ 此书写于塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁 (Septimius Severus) 在位期间，即197至200年之间。它无疑是教会英雄时代最优美的纪念碑之一。在这部著作中，德尔图良以热烈而得胜的气势，驳斥异教徒对这一新宗教的攻击，并要求在法律上宽容基督教，使它享有与罗马帝国其他教派平等的权利。这是第一次为宗教自由申辩，视之为上帝赐给每个人的不可剥夺的权利；世俗政府为了自身的利益，不仅应当容忍，更应当尊重并保护这一权利。他所求的不是支持，不是优待，而仅仅是公正。在最初三个世纪中，教会是一个自养自治的团体（它本当永远如此）；它不是国家的负担，而是国家的福分，为国家提供了最安分、最有益的公民。在专制权力和逼迫的烈火面前，真理与正义的事业从未有过比本书作者更雄辩、更无畏的捍卫者。全书自始至终都洋溢着一种确信：看似失败之际，正是得胜之时。

“我们得胜，”这是他向罗马帝国的长官和法官所说的结束语，“我们在死亡中得胜；正在被你们制服之时，我们凯旋而出……你们的许多作家都劝人勇敢承受痛苦与死亡，例如西塞罗 (Cicero) 在《图斯库卢姆论辩》 (Tusculans) 中，塞涅卡 (Seneca) 在《际遇》 (Chances) 中，以及第欧根尼 (Diogenes)、皮鲁斯 (Pyrrhus)、卡利尼库斯 (Callinicus)，都是如此。然而，他们的话并没有招来像基督徒那样多的门徒；基督徒施教，不是借着言语，而是借着行为。你们所痛斥的那种顽固，正是教导人的老师。因为谁看见这种情形，不会受到激励，去探究其中的根由呢？谁经过探究，却不接受我们的教义呢？而既已接受，谁又不愿受苦，好使自己分享上帝丰盛的恩典，以自己的血为代价，从上帝得着完全的赦免呢？因为这能确保一切过犯得蒙赦免。因此，对于你们的判决，我们就在当场献上感谢。正如神与人总是彼此对立，你们定我们罪的时候，至高者却宣告我们无罪。”

《护教篇》 (Apologeticus) 与米努修斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix) 的《屋大维篇》 (Octavius) 之间的关系，将在下一节讨论。但即使德尔图良曾借用那位作者的材料（正如他在反对瓦伦廷派的著作中，无疑曾大量借用爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的材料，却未注明出处），他仍是最富独创性、最有力量的作家之一。³⁴⁷ 此外，两书的构思也不同：米努修斯·费利克斯以哲学家的身份，在哲学家面前为基督教申辩，为要说服人的理智；德尔图良则以律师和辩护人的身份，在法官面前申辩，为要促使他们公正对待那些连出庭申辩机会也被剥夺的基督徒。

优美的小品《论灵魂的见证》 (On the Testimony of the Soul)（共6章）是《护教篇》 (Apologeticus) 的补充，为基督教提供了最有力的正面论据之一。在这里，人的灵魂被召来为独一的真神作见证：它出于上帝，也渴慕上帝；它那较纯洁、较高尚的本能与愿望，若不被自私而有罪的情欲引入歧途、加以扭曲，就会趋向高处、趋向天上，并且唯独在上帝里面才能找到安息与平安。我们可以说，灵魂与基督教之间有一种预定的和谐；二者是为彼此而造的；人的灵魂就其本性而言是基督徒。这见证又是普遍的，因为上帝无处不在，人的灵魂也无处不在。然而，人若不听从这见证，它就转而成为控告自己的见证。

他在结尾说：“每一个灵魂既是见证人，也是罪犯；它为真理作了多少见证，就承担多少谬误的罪责；在审判之日，它将站在上帝的法庭前，无言以对。灵魂啊，你曾宣扬上帝，却不曾寻求认识祂；你曾憎恶邪灵，却又把它们当作敬拜的对象；你曾预见地狱的刑罚，却不曾留心躲避；你曾带有基督教的气息，却同时又是基督徒的逼迫者。”

他的论战著作主要致力于驳斥诺斯替派 (Gnostics)。这一类中首先应提到的，是他那篇完全持大公教会立场的《论对异端的诉权抗辩》 (On the Prescription of Heretics)。³⁴⁸ 这部论著具有一般性的意义，规定了教会对待异端的根本原则。德尔图良从一开始就剥夺一切谬误和新说进行法律争辩及诉诸圣经的权利，因为圣经只属于大公教会，唯有它才是基督教的合法继承者和守护者。爱任纽曾使用过同样的论据，但德尔图良赋予它法律或法庭辩论的形式。然而，同一论据也反过来反对他自己的脱离教会；因为异端者与分裂者之间的区别，实际上只是相对的，至少在居普良 (Cyprian) 看来如此。德尔图良后来又与本书相矛盾，断言在宗教事务上，应当依据的不是习俗，也不是长期占有的权利，而唯独是真理。

在异端中，他主要攻击瓦伦廷派 (Valentinian) 诺斯替主义者和马吉安 (Marcion)。《驳马吉安》（公元208年）是他篇幅最大的著作，也是他唯一注明写作年代的著作，即塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁在位的第15年（公元208年）。³⁴⁹ 他曾写过三部反对这位著名异端者的作品；第一部因不完善而被他搁置，第二部则在尚未完成之前被人偷走，带着许多讹误出版。在这部新作（共五卷）中，他详尽地捍卫了创造万有之上帝的独一性、圣经的完整性，以及新旧两约的和谐。他施展了自己在坚实论证、精巧诡辩、嘲弄与讽刺方面的全部力量，也用尽了他所有的辱骂词汇。他对异端者比对犹太人或外邦人更为严厉。他首先生动描绘马吉安的故乡本都 (Pontus) 省种种反常的自然现象，以及当地居民阴郁的性情、狂野的激情和凶暴的习性，然后接着说：

“本都最野蛮、最可悲的事，莫过于马吉安生在那里：他比任何西徐亚人 (Scythian) 更污秽，比萨尔马提亚人 (Sarmatian) 更漂泊不定，比马萨革泰人 (Massagete) 更不近人情，比亚马逊女战士 (Amazon) 更放肆，比攸克辛海 (Euxine) 上的乌云更阴暗，比那里的冬天更寒冷，比那里的冰更脆，比伊斯特河 (Ister) 更诡诈，比高加索山 (Caucasus) 更嶙峋。不仅如此，真正的普罗米修斯 (Prometheus)，即全能的上帝，也被马吉安的亵渎撕得支离破碎。马吉安甚至比那野蛮地区的兽类更凶残。因为有什么海狸比废除婚姻纽带的他更善于阉割呢？有什么本都的老鼠，比将福音啃得粉碎的他更善于啃噬呢？攸克辛海啊，你确实产生了一个怪物，哲学家比基督徒更容易相信它的存在。因为犬儒派的第欧根尼从前常在正午提着灯四处走动，为要寻找一个人；马吉安却熄灭了自己信仰的光，因而失去了他曾找到的上帝。”

《论洗礼》 (On Baptism)、《论灵魂》 (On the Soul)、《论基督的肉身》 (On the Flesh of Christ)、《论肉身复活》 (On the Resurrection of the Flesh)、《驳赫尔摩根尼》 (Against Hermogenes)、《驳普拉克西阿斯》 (Against Praxeas) 等论著，针对的是个别谬误，对于洗礼教义、基督教心理学、末世论和基督论，都有重要意义。

他众多的实践性或禁欲论著，使我们更能了解早期教会与异教世界的不道德风气相对照的道德生活。这一类包括《论祷告》 (On Prayer)、《论悔罪》 (On Penance)、《论忍耐》 (On Patience)——他赞扬忍耐这一美德，坦诚承认自己天性急躁、脾气暴烈，并以此劝勉自己，也劝勉别人——以及慰勉狱中认信者的《致殉道者》 (Ad Martyres)、劝戒人不要进入剧场的《论观剧》 (De Spectaculis)；他将戏剧列为魔鬼的炫耀排场，又在《论偶像崇拜》 (De Idololatria) 中，反对以任何直接或间接的方式参与偶像崇拜。
他那些严格属于孟他努派或反对大公教会的著作，不像上述许多作品那样，只偶然触及这一派的特点，而是明确、详尽地为之辩护；这些著作同样具有实践性质，以狂热的严苛态度，反对恢复跌倒者的地位（《论贞洁》 (De Pudicitia)）、在逼迫中逃亡、再婚（《论一夫一妻制》 (De Monogamia) 与《劝守贞洁》 (De Exhortatione Castitatis)）、妇女炫耀服饰（《论妇女的装饰》 (De Cultu Feminarum)），以及“属魂者”的其他习俗；他通常这样称呼大公教会信徒，以区别于派内的“属灵者”。他为过度禁食所作的申辩（《论禁食》 (De Jejuniis)），以及为一名因拒绝头戴冠冕而被革职的基督徒士兵所作的辩护（《论士兵的冠冕》 (De Corona Militis)），也属于这一类。德尔图良认为，基督在世时曾为我们戴上荆棘冠冕，因此，祂的跟随者若以月桂、香桃木、橄榄枝，或以花朵、宝石装饰自己的头，便是不相宜的。我们可以想象，他若见到教皇在中世纪荣华中的三重冠，会说些什么。

附注

德尔图良著作的年代顺序，可以根据其中频繁提及的同时代罗马帝国史事，以及各书与孟他努主义的关系，大致确定。尤其可参阅乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、豪克 (Hauck)、邦韦奇 (Bonwetsch)，以及凯伊 (Kaye) 主教的研究（见厄勒 (Oehler) 编《著作集》 (Opera)，III. 709–718）。我们按照这些著作与孟他努主义的关系，将它们分为三类。

属于作者公元200年以前大公教会时期的著作，即：《护教篇》 (Apologeticus 或 Apologeticum，据邦韦奇为197年秋；埃伯特认为是198年；赫塞尔贝格认为是199年；乌尔霍恩认为是200年)；《致殉道者》 (Ad Martyres，197年)；《致外邦人》 (Ad Nationes，可能在《护教篇》〔Apol.〕之后不久)；《论灵魂的见证》 (De Testimonio Animae)；《论悔罪》 (De Poenitentia)；《论祷告》 (De Oratione)；《论洗礼》 (De Baptismo，据第15章，在此书之前，他已用希腊文撰写过一部反对异端洗礼有效性的著作)；《致妻子》 (Ad Uxorem)；《论忍耐》 (De Patientia)；《驳犹太人》 (Adv. Judaeos)；《论对异端的先决抗辩》 (De Praescriptione Haereticorum)；《论观剧》 (De Spectaculis，另有一部论述同一主题的希腊文著作，已经散佚)。

凯伊将《论观剧》 (De Spectaculis) 归于孟他努派时期。《论对异端的先决抗辩》 (De Praescriptione) 也被一些人置于孟他努派时期，在《驳马吉安》 (Adv. Marcionem) 之前或之后。但邦韦奇（第46页）将其定于199至206年之间，很可能就在199年。豪克认为，此书与《论洗礼》 (De Baptismo) 几乎同时写成。他也将《论偶像崇拜》 (De Idololatria) 置于这一时期。

确定是在他转向孟他努主义以后，即公元200至220年间写成的著作，即：《驳马吉安》 (Adv. Marcionem，5卷，至少部分写于塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁斯〔Septimius Severus〕皇帝在位第15年，即公元207或208年；参第I卷第15章)；《论灵魂》 (De Anima)；《论基督的肉身》 (De Carne Christi)；《论肉身复活》 (De Resurrectione Carnis)；《驳普拉克西阿》 (Adv. Praxean)；《蝎毒解药》 (Scorpiace，即诺斯替异端毒害的解药)；《论士兵的冠冕》 (De Corona Militis)；《论童女蒙头》 (De Virginibus velandis^*)；《劝守贞洁》 (De Exhortatione Castitatis)；《论披衣》 (De Pallio，208或209年)；《论在逼迫中逃亡》 (De Fuga in persecutione)；《论一夫一妻制》 (De Monogamia)；《论禁食》 (De Jejuniis)；《论贞洁》 (De Pudicitia)；《致斯卡普拉》 (Ad Scapulam，212年)；《论出神》 (De Ecstasi，已佚)；《论信徒的盼望》 (De Spe Fidelium，亦已佚)。

凯尔纳 (Kellner，1870年) 将《论贞洁》 (De Pudicitia)、《论一夫一妻制》 (De Monogamia)、《论禁食》 (De Jejunio) 和《驳普拉克西阿》 (Adv. Praxean) 定于218至222年之间。

可能属于孟他努派时期的著作，即：《驳瓦伦廷派》 (Adv. Valentinianos)；《论妇女的装饰》 (De cultu Feminarum，2卷)；《驳赫尔摩根尼》 (Adv. Hermogenem)。

§ 198.s 米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix)

(I.) M. 米努基乌斯·费利克斯：《屋大维》 (M. Minucii Felicis Octavius)，最佳版本由卡尔·哈尔姆 (Car. Halm) 编，维也纳，1867年（收入《拉丁教会作家文集》〔Corpus Scriptorum Eccles. Latin.〕第II卷）；另有伯恩哈德·东巴特 (Bernh. Dombart) 编本，附德译及校勘注，第2版，埃尔朗根，1881年。哈尔姆极仔细地校勘了本书唯一的抄本；此抄本原藏梵蒂冈图书馆，现藏巴黎（“tanta diligentia ut de nullo jam loco dubitari possit quid in codice uno scriptum inveniatur”，即“其用功之细，使人对于这唯一抄本中任何一处究竟写了什么，都不再有所疑惑”）。

初版由福斯图斯·萨巴埃乌斯 (Faustus Sabaeus) 刊行（罗马〔Rom.〕，1543年，作为阿尔诺比乌斯〔Arnobius〕《驳外邦人》〔Adv. Gent〕的第八卷）；其后由弗朗西斯·巴尔杜因 (Francis Balduin) 刊行（海德堡〔Heidelb.〕，1560年，作为独立著作）。此后有许多版本，编者包括乌尔西努斯 (Ursinus，1583年)、默尔修斯 (Meursius，1598年)、沃韦鲁斯 (Wowerus，1603年)、里加尔蒂乌斯 (Rigaltius，1643年)、格罗诺维乌斯 (Gronovius，1709、1743年)、戴维斯 (Davis，1712年)、林德纳 (Lindner，1760、1773年)、鲁斯武尔姆 (Russwurm，1824年)、吕布克特 (Lübkert，1836年)、穆拉尔特 (Muralt，1836年)、米涅 (Migne，1844年，收入《教父集》〔Patrol.〕III，第193栏及后)、弗里德里希·厄勒 (Fr Oehler，1847年，收入格尔斯多夫〔Gersdorf〕《教会教父选集》〔Biblioth. Patr. ecelesiast. selecta〕第XIII卷)、凯泽 (Kayser，1863年)、科内利森 (Cornelissen，莱顿〔Lugd. Bat.〕，1882年) 等。

英译本有H. A. 霍尔登 (H. A. Holden) 译本（剑桥，1853年），以及R. E. 沃利斯 (R. E. Wallis) 译本，后者收入克拉克《尼西亚前教父文库》 (Ante-Nic. Libr.) 第XIII卷，第451–517页。

(II.) 哲罗姆：《名人传》 (De Vir. ill.) 第58章；《致帕马基乌斯书》 (Ep. 48 ad Pammach.)，第48封；《致马格努斯书》 (Ep. 70 ad Magn.)，第70封。拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactant.)：《神圣教义》 (Inst. Div.) V. 1、22。

(III.) 关于米努基乌斯·费利克斯的专著、论文及其各版本的绪论，作者有：范霍文 (van Hoven，1766年，亦收入林德纳编本第II卷，1773年)；迈尔 (Meier，都灵，1824年)；尼古拉·勒努里 (Nic. Le Nourry) 与伦佩尔 (Lumper，收入米涅《拉丁教父集》〔Patr. Lat.〕III，第194–231、371–652页)；勒伦 (Rören)：《米努基乌斯研究》 (Minuciania)，贝德堡，1859年；贝尔 (Behr，论米努基乌斯·费利克斯与西塞罗的关系，格拉，1870年)；伦施 (Rönsch，见《德尔图良的新约》〔Das N. T Tertull.’s〕，1871年，第25页及后)；保罗·P. 德·费利斯 (Paul P. de Felice)：《〈屋大维〉研究》 (Études sur l’Octavius)，布卢瓦，1880年；凯姆 (Keim，见其《塞尔苏斯》〔Celsus〕，1873年，第151–168页；及《罗马与基督教》〔Rom. und das Christenthum〕，1881年，第383页及下页、第468–486页)；阿道夫·埃伯特 (Ad. Ebert，1874年，见《基督教拉丁文学史》〔Gesch. der christlich-latein. Lit.〕I，第24–31页)；G. 勒舍 (G. Loesche，论米努基乌斯·费利克斯与雅典那哥拉〔Athanagoras〕的关系，载《新教神学年鉴》〔Jahr b. für Prot. Theol.〕，1882年，第168–178页)；勒南 (RENAN)：《马可·奥勒留》 (Marc-Auréle)，1882年，第389–404页；理查德·库恩 (Richard Kuhn)：《米努基乌斯·费利克斯的〈屋大维〉：一种异教哲学的基督教观》 (Der Octavius des Minucius Felix. Eine heidnisch philosophische Auffassung vom Christenthum)，莱比锡〔Leipz.〕，1882年（71页）。又见曼戈尔德 (Mangold) 在赫尔佐格百科全书第2版（Herzog²）X，第12–17页的条目（《沙弗—赫尔佐格百科全书》载有节本）；以及G. 萨蒙 (G. Salmon) 在史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 所编辞典III，第920–924页的条目。

(IV.) 关于米努基乌斯·费利克斯与德尔图良的关系：阿道夫·埃伯特：《德尔图良与米努基乌斯·费利克斯的关系，附论康摩迪安的〈护教诗〉》 (Tertullian’s Verhältniss zu Minucius Felix, nebst einem Anhang über Commodian’s Carmen apoloqeticum)，1868年，收入《萨克森皇家科学学会语言历史学部论文集》 (Abhandlungen der philol. histor. Classe der K. sächs. Ges. der Wissenschaften) 第5卷；W. 哈特尔 (W. Hartel，载《奥地利文理中学杂志》〔Zeitschrift für d. öester. Gymnas.〕，1869年，第348–368页，反对埃伯特)；E. 克卢斯曼 (E. Klusmann，载《耶拿文学报》〔Jenaer Lit. Zeitg〕，1878年)；邦韦奇（见《德尔图良的著作》〔Die Schriften Tert.〕，1878年，第21页）；V. 舒尔策 (V. Schultze，载《新教神学年鉴》〔Jahr b. für Prot. Theol.〕，1881年，第485–506页)；P. 施文克 (P. Schwenke)：《论米努基乌斯·费利克斯的年代》 (Uber die Zeit des Min. Fel.)，载《新教神学年鉴》 (Jahr b. für Prot. Theol.)，1883年，第263–294页。

拉丁护教士米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix) 与德尔图良关系密切，其年代或稍早于他，或稍晚于他。³⁵⁰

归信者对于自己出于真诚而热切的信念、经过审慎选择而接受的体系或宗派，总是最热心的推动者，也往往最有成效。第二世纪的基督教护教士，在归信以前，都是受过教育的异教哲学家或修辞学家；他们运用自己的世俗学识与修养，驳斥偶像崇拜，维护启示的真理。同样，使徒们按出身和所受的教养都是犹太人，并使他们对旧约圣经的知识为福音效力。十六世纪的改教家出自中世纪天主教的怀抱，因此最有资格反对其中的腐败，使教会摆脱教皇制度的束缚。³⁵¹

I. 马可·米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Marcus Minucius Felix) 属于这样一类归信者：他们将古典文化的丰富宝藏带来，为基督教服务。罗马教会此前仅用希腊语向世界发言，而他当之无愧地开启了该教会拉丁作家的行列。他与拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius) 共享“基督徒的西塞罗”这一美誉。³⁵² 他没有成为教牧人员，显然仍继续从事法律职业。关于他的生平，我们只知道他是罗马的一位辩护律师，但可能出身北非。³⁵³

他留给我们一部为基督教辩护的著作，采用对话体，题为《屋大维》 (Octavius)。³⁵⁴ 作者与友人屋大维·雅努阿里乌斯 (Octavius Januarius) 从罗马出游，前往奥斯提亚 (Ostia) 的海滨浴场；这位友人与他一样，已经从异教的谬误归向基督教的真理。他们沿海滩散步时，遇见了米努基乌斯的另一位朋友凯基利乌斯·纳塔利斯 (Caecilius Natalis)；他仍是异教徒，从他的论证看来，是新学院派 (New Academy) 怀疑主义的一位哲学家。两位朋友坐在为保护浴场而安置于此的巨石上，眼前是辽阔的大海，呼吸着轻柔的海风，在凯基利乌斯的提议下，开始讨论当时的宗教问题。米努基乌斯坐在他们中间，担任裁判（第1–4章）。

凯基利乌斯首先发言（第5–15章），维护异教，反对基督教。他开头像个怀疑论者或不可知论者，认为神的存在是可疑的；但很快便转换立场，根据权宜和功利的原则，力陈敬拜祖传诸神的义务。最好的做法，是持守万国的经验都已证明有益的事物。每个民族都有自己特有的一位或多位神；罗马民族在万族中最为虔诚，容许敬拜一切神明，因此达到了最高的权势与繁荣。他指控基督徒狂妄，竟声称确知超乎人类认识范围的至高问题；又指控他们背弃祖传的传统，缺乏爱国之心；还像塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 一样，指责他们教养低劣。他嘲笑他们敬拜一个被钉十字架的罪犯和钉死他的刑具，甚至敬拜驴头。他重述有关秘密罪行的谎言，如杂交乱伦、杀害无辜婴孩，并引著名演说家弗龙托 (Fronto) 为这些诽谤的权威。他反对他们的宗教，理由是它没有庙宇、祭坛和神像。他攻击他们关于独一上帝、现今世界的毁灭、复活与审判的教义，认为这些既不合理，又荒诞不经。他怜悯他们生活严苛，厌弃戏剧、宴饮和其他无害的享乐。最后，他再次申明，人对于超乎自身之上的事物一无所知，劝人不要理会那些不确定的事，只当持守祖先的宗教，“免得引进幼稚的迷信，或将一切宗教推翻”。

在第二部分（第16–38章），屋大维依次逐点反驳这些指控，并攻击偶像崇拜。他论证神的存在与独一性、创造和上帝护理的教义，实在合乎理性，并援引各位哲学家的意见（取自西塞罗）作为印证。他揭露异教神话的荒谬，揭露人对木石偶像的敬拜、诸神的不道德，以及与其崇拜相连的残酷行径和淫秽仪式。罗马人取得权势，并不是靠他们的宗教，而是靠掠夺和暴行。指控基督徒敬拜一个罪犯及其十字架，是由于不认识他的无辜及神圣本性。基督徒没有庙宇，因为他们不愿限制无限的上帝；没有神像，因为人就是上帝的形像，而圣洁的生活便是最好的祭物。那些诬指基督徒行为不道德的谤言，追根究底都出于鬼魔；它们编造这些谎言，在民间散布，又发出神谕，行虚假的神迹，千方百计地引人同归灭亡。行这些卑劣之事的恰是异教徒，他们残忍地遗弃新生婴孩，或用堕胎将他们杀死。基督徒远避并憎恶剧场和竞技场中不道德的娱乐；在那里，疯狂、奸淫和谋杀被展示出来，也被付诸实行，甚至奉诸神之名而行。他们真正的喜乐与幸福，乃在于上帝，在于认识祂、敬拜祂。

对话结束时（第39–40章），凯基利乌斯承认自己已信服，认识到自己的错误，决心接受基督教，并希望次日再受教导。米努基乌斯对此结果表示满意，因为这使他不必再作裁决。朋友们为共同战胜谬误而欢喜感恩，从海滨返回奥斯提亚。³⁵⁵

这部著作的护教价值相当可观，但其教义价值却微乎其微。它使我们生动地看见，罗马社会上层和有教养的阶层中，新旧宗教之间的重大争论，并使双方的论据都得到公平的陈述和充分的发挥。它有力而雄辩地维护一神论，反对多神论；维护基督教道德，反对异教的不道德。但也大抵仅此而已。它对基督教真理的阐述，既贫乏、肤浅，又有缺欠。神的独一性、祂统管万有的护理、身体的复活及来世的报应，构成了屋大维信条的全部。圣经、先知和使徒都未被提及；³⁵⁶ 罪与恩典、基督与救赎、圣灵及其工作的教义，都被置之视野以外；甚至连基督的名字也没有提到。不过，从作者驳斥敬拜“一个被钉十字架的罪犯”这一指控的方式，我们可以合理地推断，他认为基督不只是一个人（第29章）。他只领人来到圣殿的外院。他的目的纯在护教，而这目的已经达到。³⁵⁷ 进一步的教导并未被排除，反而是归信后的凯基利乌斯在结尾所请求的，因为这是“为获得完备教导所必需的”。³⁵⁸ 因此，我们无权从这种沉默推断，作者不懂得信仰中更深的奥秘。³⁵⁹

他的哲学立场是折衷主义，尤为推崇西塞罗 (Cicero)、塞涅卡 (Seneca) 和柏拉图 (Plato)。在他看来，基督教无论在理论上还是实践上，都是真正的哲学，教人认识独一的真神，引人达到真正的德行与虔敬。在这一点上，他与殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 相似。³⁶⁰

《屋大维》(Octavius) 的文学形式十分悦人而优雅。其措辞比同时代任何拉丁文作家——无论异教徒还是基督徒——都更具古典风范。这部书在许多思想、文体，以及温文尔雅的绅士语调上，都与西塞罗的《论诸神的本性》(De Natura Deorum) 极为相似。米尔曼 (Milman) 座堂主任牧师说，它“使我们想起拉丁散文的黄金时代”。勒南 (Renan) 称它为“马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 晚年护教文学中的明珠”。但其写作年代尚有争议，部分取决于它与德尔图良著作的关系。

V. 写作年代。《屋大维》在论证和语言上都与德尔图良的《护教篇》(Apologeticus) 极为相似，以致其中一书必定以另一书为前提；不过，两书的宗旨不同，前者是一位哲学家和文雅绅士的申辩，后者则是一位律师和热忱基督徒的申辩。旧说（也有一些例外³⁶¹）主张《护教篇》在先，因此将《屋大维》置于前书写成的公元197年或200年之后。埃伯特 (Ebert) 将这一次序颠倒，试图通过细致的批判性比较，证明《屋大维》的独创性。³⁶² 他的结论为近来大多数德国作者所接受，³⁶³ 但也遭到反对。³⁶⁴ 如果德尔图良利用了米努基乌斯 (Minucius) 的作品，他就是将后者的提示加以发挥；如果米努基乌斯利用了德尔图良的作品，他所做的便是删节。

可以确定，米努基乌斯借鉴了西塞罗（也借鉴了塞涅卡，可能还有雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras)），³⁶⁵ 而德尔图良（在其《驳瓦伦廷派》〔Adv. Valent.〕中）则借鉴了爱任纽 (Irenaeus)；尽管二人都极善于运用材料，与其说是抄录，不如说是重新创作，但德尔图良无疑是一位远为独创、雄健而重要的作家。此外，从革利免直到第三世纪中叶前后的希坡律陀 (Hippolytus)，罗马的神学家都使用希腊语，唯一的例外可能是维克多 (Victor，190–202年)。就这些方面而言，米努基乌斯生活于较晚年代的可能性更大。

但仔细比较那些平行段落，似乎有利于认定他的著作在先；然而，这一论据并非定论。³⁶⁶ 有人还根据另一事实推断米努基乌斯在先：他两次提到弗龙托 (Fronto，马可·奥勒留的老师和朋友)，似乎将他视为一位新近的名人，而弗龙托约于168年去世。凯姆 (Keim) 和勒南认为书中暗指马可·奥勒留治下的逼迫（177年）和塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 的攻击（178年），因而将《屋大维》定于178至180年之间。³⁶⁷ 但这些假设并无根据，而且它们反倒会导向另一结论，即此书不早于200年写成；因为（如凯姆本人所设想的）约过了二十年，这场对话才实际记录成文。

法国人最近在阿尔及利亚 (Algeria) 的基尔塔 (Cirta，即君士坦丁城〔Constantine〕) 发现数方年代介于210至217年的铭文，其中记载该城最高行政长官的名字为马尔库斯·凯基利乌斯·昆图斯之子·纳塔利斯 (Marcus Caecilius Quinti F. Natalis)；这为米努基乌斯生活于较晚年代提供了一项意料之外的论据。³⁶⁸ 我们这篇对话中代表异教发言的凯基利乌斯·纳塔利斯 (Caecilius Natalis)，正来自这座城（第9、31章）。诚然，无法证明二者是同一人，但至少极有可能。

考虑到这些相互冲突的可能性与或然性，我们的结论是：《屋大维》写于第三世纪的头二十五年，很可能是在亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus) 和平在位期间（公元222–235年）。最晚可能的年代是250年，因为居普良 (Cyprian) 约在那时写成的《论偶像的虚妄》(De Idolorum Vanitate)，在很大程度上以此书为依据。³⁶⁹

§ 199. 居普良 (Cyprian)

参看§§ 22、47及53。

(I.) 《圣居普良全集》(S. Cypriani Opera omnia)。最佳批判版由W. 哈特尔 (W. Hartel) 编订，维也纳 (Vindob.)，1868–1871年，3卷，八开本（收入维也纳《拉丁教会作家文集》〔Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiast. Latinorum〕）；以考察40部抄本为基础。

其他版本有：斯韦因海姆 (Sweynheym) 与潘纳尔茨 (Pannartz) 编，罗马 (Rom.)，1471年（初印本），1477年又在威尼斯出版；伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 编，巴塞尔 (Bas.)，1520年（首部批判版，多次重印）；保罗·马努提乌斯 (Paul Manutius) 编，罗马，1563年；莫雷尔 (Morell) 编，巴黎 (Par.)，1564年；里戈 (Rigault，Rigaltius) 编，巴黎，1648年；牛津主教约翰·费尔 (John Fell) 编，牛津 (Oxon.)，1682年（极佳，附皮尔逊〔Pearson〕主教的《居普良编年史》〔Annales Cyprianici〕），1700年及以后又在阿姆斯特丹 (Amst.) 出版；本笃会版由巴卢齐乌斯 (Baluzius) 着手编订，普鲁德·马拉努斯 (Prud. Maranus) 完成，巴黎，1726年，1卷，对开本（宏丽的版本，正文有所改订，以满足罗马教廷），1758年在威尼斯重印，又收入米涅 (Migne) 的《拉丁教父集》“Patrol. Lat.”（第IV卷，巴黎，第18页，以及第V卷的一部分，第9–80页，附有多种增补）；另有格尔斯多夫 (Gersdorf) 所编便于使用的袖珍版，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1838年及后（收入格尔斯多夫的《拉丁教父丛书》“Biblioth. Patrum Lat.”第II、III部分）。

英译本有：N. 马歇尔 (N. Marshall) 译，伦敦 (Lond.)，1717年；收入牛津《教父文库》“Library of the Fathers”的译本，牛津，1840年；以及R. G. 沃利斯 (R. G. Wallis) 译本，收入《尼西亚前文库》“Ante-Nicene Lib.”，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1868年，2卷；纽约版第V卷（1885年）。

(II.) 庞提乌斯 (Pontius) 著《居普良传》(Vita Cypriani)，以及《居普良殉道总督审讯录》(Acta Proconsularia Martyrii Cypr.)，均收入吕纳尔 (Ruinart) 的《殉道者行传》(Acta Mart.) 第II卷；前者也见于居普良著作的大多数版本。

(III.) J. 皮尔逊 (J. Pearson)：《居普良编年史》(Annales Cyprianici)。牛津，1682年，收入费尔所编版本。这是一部学识渊博、见解敏锐的著作，确定了许多书信的年代次序，并纠正了无数错误。

H. 多德韦尔 (H. Dodwell)：《居普良研究三篇》(Dissertationes Cyprianicae tres)。牛津，1684年；阿姆斯特丹，1700年；亦收入米涅《拉丁教父集》“Patr. Lat.”第V卷，第9–80栏。

A. F. 热尔韦 (A. F. Gervaise)：《圣居普良传》(Vie de St. Cyprien)。巴黎，1717年。

F. W. 雷特贝格 (F. W. Rettberg)：《居普良的生平与工作》(Cyprianus nach seinem Leben u. Wirken)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1831年。

G. A. 普尔 (G. A. Poole)：《居普良的生平与时代》(Life and Times of Cyprian)。牛津，1840年（419页）。持圣公会高派立场，反对教皇制度。

Aem. 布朗皮尼翁 (Aem. Blampignon)：《居普良传》(Vie de Cyprien)。巴黎，1861年。

Ch. E. 弗雷佩尔 (Ch. E. Freppel，教皇至上派)：《圣居普良与第三世纪的非洲教会》(Saint Cyprien et l’église d’ Afrique an troisième siécle)。巴黎，1865年；第2版，1873年。

Ad. 埃伯特 (Ad. Ebert)：《基督教拉丁文学史》(Geschichte der christl. latein. Literatur)。莱比锡，1874年，第I卷，第54–61页。

J. 彼得斯 (J. Peters，罗马天主教徒)：《圣居普良：生平与工作》(Der heil. Cyprian. Leben u. Wirken)。雷根斯堡 (Regensb.)，1877年。

B. 费希特鲁普 (B. Fechtrup)：《圣居普良：生平与教义》(Der h. Cyprian, Leben u. Lehre)，第I卷。明斯特 (Münster)，1878年。

奥托·里奇尔 (Otto Ritschl)：《迦太基的居普良与教会体制》(Cyprian vom Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche)。哥廷根，1885年。

有关居普良的专题文章，作者有J. W. 内文 (J. W. Nevin) 和瓦里恩 (Varien)（均见1852及1853年的《梅尔瑟堡评论》“Mercerburg Review”）；彼得斯（教皇至上派：《居普良论教会合一的教义——反对迦太基和罗马的分裂》〔Cyprian’s doctrine on Unity of the Church in opposition to the schisms of Carthage and Rome〕，卢森堡〔Luxemb〕，1870年）；约斯·胡布·赖因肯斯 (Jos. Hub. Reinkens，旧天主教会主教：《居普良论教会合一的教义》〔Cypr’s. Doctr. on the Unity of the Church.〕，维尔茨堡〔Würzburg〕，1873年）。

I. 居普良的生平

塔斯基乌斯·凯基利乌斯·居普良 (Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) 是主教和殉道者，也是第三世纪中叶大公教会的化身。他约于200年或更早，出生于迦太基 (Carthage) 一个高贵富裕的异教家庭。他的执事兼传记作者庞提乌斯认为，与他后来在教会中的伟大成就相比，他早年的生活不值得记述。哲罗姆告诉我们，他作为修辞学教师享有盛誉。³⁷⁰ 无论如何，他在文学、修辞学和法学方面都有卓越修养，并具有出众的行政才能，后来在主教任内大得其助。他一直到成年都过着世俗的奢华生活；从他自己的忏悔中，我们必须推知，他也未能免于异教中常见的恶习。但关于他曾习行魔法的故事，或许出于某种混淆，无论如何并无证据。然而，在成为基督徒之后，他像德尔图良等人一样，相信异象和异梦，并在殉道前不久还有过这样的经历。

一位可敬的长老凯基利乌斯 (Caecilius) 住在居普良家中，后来临终时又将妻儿托付给他；正是这位长老最先使他认识基督教教义，并促使他阅读圣经。经过长久的抗拒，居普良终于离弃世界，加入慕道者的行列，变卖产业以赒济穷人，³⁷¹ 立下守贞的誓愿，并于245或246年受洗；出于对属灵父亲的感激，他采用了凯基利乌斯这个名字。

他本人在不久之后写给一位朋友的短篇著作中，³⁷² 以如下雄辩的言辞描述了自己的归信：“当我困顿于黑暗和深夜之中，在动荡世界的海上颠簸，不知自己的归宿，远离真理与光明时，按我当时的习性，我以为人能够重生，能够借着施行救恩的水洗而获得新生命，脱去过去，在身体仍为同一身体的同时，心思意念却焕然改变，这全然是一件艰难困苦的事。我说，这样的改变怎么可能呢？人怎能一下子脱尽一切或与生俱来、或后天习得而在身上根深蒂固的东西呢？……惯于盛宴的人，从何学得节俭？身穿华服、披金着紫、光彩照人的人，又怎肯降而穿上普通朴素的衣裳？素享尊荣地位的人，无法忍受退居私人生活而默默无闻……但当我借着使人重生的水，³⁷³ 洗去昔日生活的污点时，一道宁静纯洁的光便从上面倾注在我洁净的胸怀中。当我饮受从上面来的灵，借第二次出生变为新人时，摇摆不定的心便奇妙地坚定起来；原先封闭的敞开了；黑暗变为光明；原先看来困难的事，如今有力量去行；我原以为不可能的，也成为可行。”

居普良此时退隐苦修，热心研读圣经和教会教师的著作，尤其是德尔图良的作品；他每天都用这句话索取其书：“把老师拿给我！”³⁷⁴ 德尔图良对他神学形成的影响是毋庸置疑的；例如，只要比较二人论祷告和忍耐的短篇著作，或将前者论偶像虚妄的作品与后者的护教著作相比，便一目了然。因此，颇为奇怪的是，我们在他自己的著作中，竟找不到对这种受益关系的承认；而且据我所记得，他从未明确提及德尔图良和孟他努派 (Montanists)。不过，在与分裂势力的斗争中，他无法从德尔图良那里获得帮助和慰藉。

这样的人不可能长久隐而不显。受洗仅两年之后，尽管居普良恳切推辞，民众仍以一致的欢呼推举他为迦太基主教，他也因而同时成为整个北非教牧的领袖。选举一位初信者，违背了教会法规的明文规定（参《提摩太前书》3:6），后来又导致诺瓦图斯 (Novatus) 一党的分裂。但结果证明，在这里，正如安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、奥古斯丁及古代教会其他杰出主教同样被擢升的事例一样，民众的声音就是上帝的声音。

在以得胜殉道告终的十年间，居普良以堪为典范的精力、智慧和忠诚，履行迦太基主教的职分；而这正是一段风暴最为猛烈的时期，外有逼迫，内有分裂的动荡。瓦勒良 (Valerian) 治下的逼迫终结了他积极的工作。他被放逐了十一个月，随后在总督面前受审，被判斩首。宣判时，他说：“感谢上帝。”随后跪下祷告，亲手用布带蒙住双眼，给了刽子手一枚金币，以英雄般的尊严与镇定赴死。他的朋友夜间将遗体移走安葬。后来在他殉道和安葬的地点各建了一座礼拜堂。他的忌日长期受到纪念；奥古斯丁为纪念居普良于258年9月14日殉道而作的讲章，至今尚存五篇。

品格与地位

正如俄利根 (Origen) 是第三世纪最博学的学者，德尔图良是最有力的作家，居普良 (Cyprian) 则是这个世纪最伟大的主教。他生来就适合在教会中居于领袖之位。在治理才干方面，他甚至超过了同时代所有的罗马主教；而在与他们交往时，他也本着完全平等的精神，以“弟兄”（frater）和“同僚”（collega）的身份自处。奥古斯丁特别尊称他为“大公教会的主教和殉道者”；勒兰的文森特 (Vincentius of Lirinum) 则称他为“所有圣徒、所有殉道者和所有主教的光”。他的性格特征更接近彼得，而不像保罗或约翰。

他的独特重要性，与其说在神学领域——他在这方面缺乏独创性和深度——不如说在教会组织与纪律方面。德尔图良主要应对异端，居普良则把论战的矛头指向分裂者；在这些人中，他理应谴责自己所敬重的老师，因为后者至死仍是孟他努派，但他实际上从未这样做过。然而，他自己的行为也并非与其立场完全一致；因为在有关异端洗礼的争论中，他自己也表现出了老师反对罗马的精神。他以真正具有新教精神的格言，为自己排他性的大公教会传统原则划定了界限：“Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est（没有真理的习俗，不过是陈旧的谬误），以及 Non est de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum（不应凭习俗定断，而应以理服人）。”可以说，古代大公教会的圣统制与主教独裁制观念，无论在其与教皇制观念相近还是相冲突的方面，都在他身上得到了具体体现，成为有血有肉的实在。教会作为一切救恩的载体和媒介，其合一是他一生思索的主题，也是他心中热情之所在。但他维护独立主教职的热忱，与维护罗马首席地位的热忱同样强烈；因此，人们援引他的权威来反对教皇制，与用来支持教皇制，同样频繁。在这两方面，他都忠实地表达了那个时代以教会为重的精神。

若将他高举教会权威的原则归因于骄傲和野心，那就极不公正了，尽管像他这样显赫的地位，无疑会受到这种心态的试探。这些原则完全可以与个人在上帝面前的真诚谦卑并存。他起初说“nolo episcopari”（我不愿作主教），以及后来所持的圣统制意识，其根基都是他对主教职分之神圣权威与重大责任的深刻确信。他履行职分的义务，正如维护职分的权利一样，都是尽心竭力。尽管他极为尊崇主教的尊严，他却事事与长老商议，并尊重会众的权利。他知道如何将严格与温和、尊严与柔和结合起来，不仅赢得敬重与尊崇，也激发爱戴与信任。他像父亲一样，自任照顾寡妇、孤儿、穷人和病人的责任。在252年的大瘟疫期间，他对羊群表现出极其舍己的忠诚，对仇敌则表现出爱。他诚然曾在德修 (Decius) 治下的逼迫中离开自己的会众，但正如他明确向他们保证的，他这样做只是遵循上帝的告诫，并要在十四个月的流亡期间以教牧书信指导他们。他的举动使他遭受胆怯的指责。在瓦勒良治下的逼迫中，他从容而欣然地殉道，以自己的鲜血彻底洗去了那次逃离的污点。

他起初施行严厉的纪律，后来却审慎地顺应时势的迫切需要，放宽了自己的纪律原则，前后并不完全一致。他与德尔图良一样，禁止妇女一切炫耀衣饰的行为，认为这只会损伤造物主的作品；他也热烈反对参与任何异教娱乐，甚至不准一位已经归信的演员教授朗诵和哑剧。他深知一切属世之物终必朽坏，又仰望庄严的永恒，因此过着简朴、苦修的生活；也唯有在永恒中，争战中的教会所面对的问题与纷争，才能得到完全解决。他在瘟疫期间所写的《论死亡》(De Mortalitate) 中说：“唯有在天上，唯有在天上才有真正的和平、安稳的休憩，以及恒久、坚固、永远的安全；那里是我们的居所，那里是我们的家乡。谁不愿赶快到达那里呢？那里有众多亲爱的人等候我们；有为数众多的父辈、弟兄和儿女。那里有荣耀的使徒诗班，有欢欣的众先知；那里有数不清的殉道者，在争战和苦难之后戴上得胜的冠冕；那里有凯旋的童贞者；那里有享受赏赐的怜悯人者。让我们满怀渴望地奔向那里；让我们盼望早日与他们同在，早日与基督同在。属世的之后，是属天的；微小的之后，是伟大的；朽坏之后，是永恒。”

他的著作

作为作家，居普良在独创性、丰赡和雄健方面远不及德尔图良，但他的文风更清晰、更温和，也更优雅，更富修辞之美。他只有在论述教会、祭司职和献祭的教义时，才有独立的见解。

(1.) 他最重要的著作，论述的是教会治理和纪律方面的实际问题。其中有他的《论教会合一》(Unity of the Church，公元251年)，这是古代大公教会高教会精神的“大宪章”（magna charta）；其举足轻重的意义，我们已经考察过。其次是八十一封书信，³⁷⁵其中有些篇幅很长，分别写给各地主教、非洲和罗马的教牧与众教会、认信者、失足者等；其中也收录了他人的若干回信，如罗马的哥尼流 (Cornelius) 和凯撒利亚的菲尔米利安 (Firmilian) 的信。这些书信向我们极其生动地展现了他的牧养工作，以及当时教会生活的全貌。同属这一类的，还有他反对松弛悔罪纪律的论著《论失足者》(De Lapsis，公元250年)。

(2.) 此外，他还写了一系列伦理著作：《论上帝的恩典》(On the Grace of God，246年)；《论主祷文》(On the Lord’s Prayer，252年)；《论死亡》(On Mortality，252年)；反对献身童女贪恋世俗、以衣饰自夸的《论童女的服饰》(De Habitu Virginum)；热烈呼召人们《殉道》(Martyrdom) 的著作；劝勉慷慨施舍的《论善行与施舍》(De Opere el Eleemosynis，254至256年间)，其中略带“事效”（opus operatum）教义的意味；以及在他与教皇司提反 (Stephanus) 争论期间写成的两篇优美论著：《论忍耐之益》(De Bono Patienti) 与《论嫉妒与怨恨》(De Zelo et Livore，约256年)，劝勉那些情绪激动的人忍耐、温和。

(3.) 最不重要的是他的两部护教著作，都是他初学基督教时的作品。一部针对异教，即《论偶像的虚妄》(de Idolorum Vanitate)，其中大部分借自德尔图良和米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix)，常常逐字照录。另一部针对犹太教，即《驳犹太人的见证》(Testimonia adversus Judaeos)，同样没有新的思想，却仔细汇集了证明耶稣是弥赛亚并具有神性的经文。

附注——在伪托居普良的著作中，有一篇反对掷骰子及一切碰运气游戏的讲道（Adversus Aleatores，见哈特尔〔Hartel〕编本，III. 92–103）；近来有人论证，此篇实出于罗马主教维克托 (Victor，190–202年) 之手。他生于非洲，是一位持排他立场的高教会派人士。此文以教皇通谕的口吻写成，所用拉丁文质朴粗疏。参见哈纳克 (Harnack)：《伪居普良的〈论赌徒〉》(Der pseudo-cyprian. Tractat De Aleatoribus)，莱比锡，1888年。菲利普·沙弗 (Ph. Schaff)：《最古老的教皇通谕》(The Oldest Papal Encyclical)，载纽约《独立报》(The Independent)，1889年2月28日。

§ 200. 诺瓦提安

比较§58，第196页及下页，以及§183，第773页。

(I.) 《罗马长老诺瓦提安现存著作全集》(Novatiani, Presbyteri Romani, Opera quae exstant omnia)。各编本如下：加涅乌斯 (Gagnaeus) 编（巴黎〔Par.〕，1545年，收入德尔图良著作集）；格莱尼乌斯 (Gelenius) 编（巴塞尔〔Bas.〕，1550年及1562年）；帕梅利乌斯 (Pamelius) 编（巴黎，1598年）；加兰迪 (Gallandi) 编（第III卷）；爱德华·韦尔奇曼 (Edw. Welchman) 编（牛津〔Oxf.〕，1724年）；J. 杰克逊 (J. Jackson) 编（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1728年，最佳版本）；米涅 (Migne) 编（《拉丁教父集》〔Patrol. Lat.〕第III卷，第861–970栏）。米涅本收录了伦佩尔 (Lumper) 的专题论文和加兰迪的评注。

R. E. 沃利斯 (R. E. Wallis) 的英译本，收入克拉克 (Clark) 的《尼西亚前教父文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第II卷（1869年），第297–395页；比较第I卷，第85页及后。

(II.) 优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.) VI. 43、44、45。哲罗姆 (Hieron.)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.) 66、70；《致达马苏书》第36封（Ep. 36 ad Damas.）；《驳鲁菲努斯辩护书》(Apol. adv. Ruf.) II. 19。苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(H. E.) IV. 28。居普良和哥尼流论及诺瓦提安分裂的《书信》（居普良〔Cypr.〕，Ep. 44、45、49、52、55、59、60、68、69、73）。埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius)：《驳异端》(Haer.) 59；苏格拉底：《教会史》(H. E) IV. 28。狄奥多勒 (Theodor.)：《异端故事汇编》(Haer. Fab.) III. 5。佛提乌 (Photius)：《文库》(Biblioth.) 182、208、280。

(III.) 瓦尔希 (Walch)：《异端史》(Ketzerhistorie) II. 185–288。舍内曼 (Schoenemann)：《拉丁教父历史文献书目》(Biblioth. Hist. Lit. Patr. Latinorum)，I. 135–142。伦佩尔 (Lumper)：《论诺瓦提安的生平、著作与教义》(Dissert. de Vita, Scriptis, et doctrina Nov.)，载米涅编本，III. 861–884。尼安德 (Neander)，I. 237–248及687（美国版）。卡斯帕里 (Caspari)：《洗礼信经史料》(Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols)，III. 428–430、437–439。约斯·朗根 (Jos. Langen，旧天主教派)：《罗马教会史》(Gesch. der röm. Kirche)（波恩，1881年），第289–314页。哈纳克 (Harnack)：《诺瓦提安》(Novatian)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)²，X.（1882年），第652–670页。另参论居普良的著作，尤其是费希特鲁普 (Fechtrup) 的著作。见§199的参考文献。关于诺瓦提安的三位一体教义和基督位格论，参见多尔纳 (Dorner) 的《基督位格教义发展史》(Entwicklungsgesch. der L. v. d. Pers. Christi)（1851年），I. 601–604。（“Dem Tertullian nahe stehend, von ihm abhängig, aber auch ihn verflachend ist Novatian.”——“诺瓦提安接近德尔图良，依赖于他，却也使他的思想流于浅薄。”）

诺瓦提安 (Novatian) 是罗马第二位敌对教皇（第一位可能是希波吕托〔Hippolytus〕）；他在教义上正统，却在纪律上造成分裂，在这两方面都与希波吕托和德尔图良极为相似。他活跃于第三世纪中叶，成为一个以他名字命名的派别的创始人。³⁷⁶ 他品格严峻，却无可指摘，具有相当的圣经与哲学学识、思辨才华和口才。³⁷⁷ 此外，继维克托和米努基乌斯·费利克斯之后，他是最早使用拉丁语的罗马神学家，而且运用娴熟。我们可以推断，在他的时代，拉丁语已经成为或正在迅速成为罗马教会的主导语言，尤其是在与北非和西方的通信中；然而，诺瓦提安和他的对手哥尼流，写信给东方主教时都使用希腊语。卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 墓地中，第三世纪五位罗马主教乌尔班 (Urbanus)、安特罗斯 (Anteros)、法比安 (Fabianus)、卢修斯 (Lucius) 和欧提基安 (Eutychianus)（223至283年间）的墓志都是希腊文；但哥尼流（251–253年）的墓志却是拉丁文（“Cornelius Martyr E. R. X.”，即“哥尼流，殉道者……”）。他可能出自罗马同名的贵族家族。³⁷⁸

当时，罗马会众中有四十位长老、七位执事、七位副执事、四十二位辅祭，此外还有驱魔者、诵经员和司门，以及“数不清的民众”，会众总数或许达到了约50,000人。³⁷⁹

我们对诺瓦提安出生和去世的时间与地点一无所知。他可能是意大利人。后来关于他出身弗里吉亚 (Phrygia) 的记载不可信，可能源于这样一个事实：他在弗里吉亚有许多追随者，他们在那里与孟他努派联合。他成年后归信，仅在病榻上领受了洒水的临终洗礼，此后也未领受主教的坚振礼；但他仍被按立为祭司，并升至罗马教牧中的最高地位。从法比安于250年1月21日殉道，到哥尼流于251年3月当选，在这段罗马主教座位空缺期间，他负责罗马主教座的正式通信。他以“住在罗马的长老和执事”的名义写信给居普良，³⁸⁰将恢复失足者的问题留待将来的会议决定，却表明自己倾向于严格的纪律，认为这在和平与逼迫时期都至为必要，是“风暴中保全性命的舵”。³⁸¹

他可能曾有意登上教皇之位，因为看来他最有资格担任此职。然而，德修 (Decius) 的逼迫停止之后，他那先前默默无闻的对手哥尼流 (Cornelius) 获得多数教牧的选举，并赞成对失足者采取宽松的纪律；他的前任卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 和泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 曾实行这种纪律，而希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 在二三十年前曾对此提出强烈抗议。诺瓦提安由少数派选为敌对教皇，并由三位意大利主教祝圣。³⁸² 他被罗马的一次会议逐出教会，哥尼流又在正式书信中斥责他为“一头诡诈、狡猾而凶残的野兽”。双方都向外地教会寻求支持。安提阿的法比安 (Fabian) 同情诺瓦提安，但亚历山大的狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius)，尤其是居普良 (Cyprian)，则支持哥尼流；居普良此时已放宽了先前的严厉态度，并且憎恶分裂，如同憎恶瘟疫一般。于是，较为宽松而仁慈的纪律制度，连同对世俗的迁就，在大公教会中取得了胜利。尽管如此，诺瓦提安的分裂运动仍传遍东西方，虽遭帝国逼迫，却一直保持其严格的纪律和正统的信经，直到第六世纪。据其追随者的传统，诺瓦提安死于殉道。这场争论的焦点，是钥匙权柄的范围，以及公义对教会纯洁的要求和怜悯对失足者的要求。仁慈的观点借助“教会之外没有救恩”这一原则而占了上风。

诺瓦提安是一位多产的作者。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 将下列著作归于他名下：《论逾越节》(On the Passover)；《论安息日》(On the Sabbath)；《论割礼》(On Circumcision)；《论祭司》(De Sacerdote)；《论祷告》(On Prayer)；《论犹太人的食物》(On the Jewish Meats)；《论恒忍》(On Perseverance)；³⁸³《论阿提卢斯》(On Attilus，别迦摩的一位殉道者)；以及《论三位一体》(On the Trinity)。

这些著作中有两部保存至今。最重要的是他的《论三位一体》(Liber de Trinitate，31章)，写于公元256年。这部著作有时被归于德尔图良或居普良。哲罗姆称之为一部“伟大的著作”，并说它摘录自德尔图良一部不为人知的同题著作。诺瓦提安基本上赞同德尔图良带有从属论色彩的三位一体论。他有力地维护基督和圣灵的神性，力求调和神的三与一，并以圣经和哲学的论证驳斥神格唯一论者 (Monarchians)，尤其是撒伯流派 (Sabellians)。

在《论犹太人食物的书信》(Epistola de Cibus Judaicis，7章) 中，他于逼迫期间从隐居之处写信给自己的羊群，试图借助寓意解释证明：摩西关于食物的律法不再约束基督徒，基督已用节制与禁欲取代禁止食用不洁净动物的规定；唯有祭偶像之肉例外，因为使徒会议已禁止食用（《使徒行传》15章）。

§ 201. 康莫迪安

(I.) 康莫迪安 (Commodianus)：《为基督徒训诲驳外邦诸神》(Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos pro Christiana Disciplina)，以及《驳犹太人与外邦人的护教诗》(Carmen Apologeticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes)。《训诲》(Instructiones) 由西尔蒙 (Sirmond) 发现，里戈 (Rigault) 于1650年在图勒 (Toul) 首次刊行；近来又由 Fr. 厄勒 (Fr. Oehler) 收入格尔斯多夫 (Gersdorf) 的《拉丁教父文库》(Biblioth. P. Lat.)，第XVIII卷，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1847年（第133–194页），以及米涅 (Migne) 的《教父集》(Patrol.)，第V卷，第201–262栏。

第二部著作由枢机主教皮特拉 (Pitra) 发现，并刊于《索莱姆文献辑录》(Spicilegium Solesmense)，第I卷，巴黎 (Par.)，1852年，第21–49页，及附论第537–543页；第IV卷（1858年），第222–224页，又对讹误的文本作了新的校订；伦施 (Rönsch) 在1872年的《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für hist. Theol.) 中刊行了更好的版本。

这两首诗由 E. 路德维希 (E. Ludwig) 合编为《康莫迪安诗集》(Commodiani Carmina)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1877及1878年；B. 多姆巴特 (B. Dombart) 也在维也纳出版了合编本。

第一首诗的英译本（但采用散文形式）由 R. E. 沃利斯 (R. E. Wallis) 翻译，收入克拉克 (Clark) 的《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第III卷（1870年），第434–474页。

(II.) 多德韦尔 (Dodwell)：《论康莫迪安的年代》(Dissert. de aetate Commod.)，序论，载米涅 (Migne) 编本，V. 189–200。阿尔措格 (Alzog)：《教父学》(Patrol.)，340–342。J. L. 雅可比 (J. L. Jacobi)，载施奈德 (Schneider) 的《基督教学术与基督徒生活杂志》(Zeitschrift für christl. Wissenschaft und christl. Leben)，1853年，第203–209页。Ad. 埃伯特 (Ad. Ebert)，载其论德尔图良与米努基乌斯·费利克斯关系一文的附录，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1868年，第69–102页；又见其《基督教拉丁文学史》(Gesch. er christl. lat. Lit.)，I. 86–93；以及他在赫尔佐格 (Herzog)² III. 325及下页的条目。莱姆巴赫 (Leimbach)，论康莫迪安《驳外邦人与犹太人的护教诗》(Carmen apol. adv. Gentes et Judaeos) 的复活节校刊，施马尔卡尔登 (Schmalkalden)，1871年（他澄清了许多问题）。赫尔曼·伦施 (Hermann Rönsch)，载《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für historische Theologie)，1872年，第2期，第163–302页（他提供了附有语文学解释的拉丁文修订文本）。扬 (Young)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，I. 610–611。

康莫迪安 (Commodian) 可能是北非的一位教牧。³⁸⁴ 他通过研读圣经，尤其是旧约，从异教归信。³⁸⁵ 约在第三世纪中叶，他以非洲通俗拉丁语的风格写了两部作品，诗律粗陋，六音步诗行不合规范，不顾音节长短和元音相接的禁忌。这些作品在诗艺和神学上毫无价值，但对于基督教实践生活的历史却并非无足轻重；在粗糙的外衣和许多迷信观念之下，它们显露出一颗谦卑而热忱的基督徒之心。康莫迪安在基督论上是圣父受苦论者 (Patripassian)，在末世论上是千禧年论者 (Chiliast)。因此，教皇格拉修 (Gelasius) 将他列入伪经作者之中。他的非洲通俗拉丁语，是拉丁语言与诗歌向中世纪罗曼语文学过渡的一座界碑。

第一首诗题为《基督徒生活训诲》，写于公元240年左右或更早。³⁸⁶ 它旨在使异教徒和犹太人归信，也向慕道者、信徒和悔罪者提出劝勉。全诗有一千二百余行，分为八十节，每节都是一首离合诗，各行的首字母拼成本节的标题或主题。前45节是护教性的，针对异教徒；其余35节是劝诫性的，写给基督徒。第一部分鉴于世界末日即将来临，劝勉不信者悔改，并突出关于敌基督、十二支派归回、第一次复活、千禧年以及末日审判的千禧年思想。第二部分劝勉慕道者和各类基督徒。最后一首离合诗再次提醒读者世界的末日，其标题是“Nomen Gazaei”（“加沙人的名字”）；³⁸⁷ 若倒读各行的首字母，便得出作者的名字：Commodianus mendicus Christi（“康莫迪安，基督的乞丐”）。³⁸⁸

第二部著作直到1852年才重见天日，题为《驳犹太人与外邦人的护教诗》，写于249年左右。它与《训诲》的第一部分类似，鉴于世界末日临近，劝勉他们立即悔改。它同样以粗陋的六音步诗体写成，分为47节，论述上帝、人和救赎主的教义（第89–275行）；救恩经纶中子与父这些名称的意义（第276–573行）；基督教发展的障碍（第574–611行）；它告诫犹太人和外邦人离弃他们的宗教（第612–783行），并描绘末后的事（第784–1053行）。

第二首诗最引人注意的部分是结尾。它对敌基督的描绘比第一首诗更为详尽。作者预期，世界的末日将随第七次逼迫很快来到；哥特人 (Goths) 将攻克罗马，解救基督徒；但随后尼禄将作为异教的敌基督出现，重新征服罗马，肆虐攻击基督徒三年半；接着，他又将被来自东方的犹太人的、真正的敌基督征服。后者击败尼禄并焚毁罗马之后，将返回犹太地，施行虚假的神迹，受犹太人敬拜。最后，基督显现，也就是上帝自己显现（依照作者的神格唯一论立场），以失散的十二支派为他的军队；这些支派一直住在波斯以外，过着幸福、淳朴而有德行的生活。在惊人的自然异象中，他将征服敌基督及其军旅，使万国归信，并占有圣城耶路撒冷。结尾对审判的描绘，只保存了一些残篇。两个敌基督的观念源于《启示录》中的两只兽，结合了犹太人关于敌弥赛亚的观念与异教的尼禄传说。但值得注意的特点是：第二个敌基督被描绘为犹太人，并击败异教的尼禄，正如他自己将被基督击败一样。两个敌基督的同一观念，也见于拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)。³⁸⁹

§ 202. 阿尔诺比乌斯

(I.) 演说家阿尔诺比乌斯 (Arnobius) 的《驳异教徒七卷》(Arnobii [oratoris] adversus Nationes，或 Gentes, libri septem)。最佳版本由赖弗沙伊德 (Reifferscheid) 编订，维也纳 (Vindob.)，1875年。（维也纳科学院出版的《拉丁教会作家文集》〔Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum〕第IV卷。）

其他版本：福斯图斯·萨贝乌斯 (Faustus Sabaeus) 编，佛罗伦萨，1543年（初版）；巴塞尔 (Bas.)，弗罗贝尼乌斯 (Frobenius)，1546年；巴黎，1580、1666、1715年；安特卫普 (Antw.)，1582年；罗马 (Rom.)，1583年；日内瓦 (Genev.)，1597年；莱顿 (Lugd. Bat.)，1598、1651年；奥雷利 (Orelli) 编，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1816年；希尔德布兰德 (Hildebrand) 编，哈雷 (Halle)，1844年；米涅 (Migne) 编，《拉丁教父集》(Patrol. Lat.)，V，1844年，第350栏及后；Fr. 厄勒 (Fr. Oehler) 编（收入格尔斯多夫〔Gersdorf〕的《拉丁教父文库》〔Bibl. Patr. Lat.〕），莱比锡 (Lips.)，1846年。关于文本，参见厄勒与赖弗沙伊德的序论。

A. 汉密尔顿·布赖斯 (A. Hamilton Bryce) 与休·坎贝尔 (Hugh Campbell) 的英译本，收入克拉克 (Clark) 的《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nic. Libr.)，第XIX卷（爱丁堡〔Edinb.〕，1871年）。德译本由贝纳尔 (Benard，1842年) 和阿勒克尔 (Alleker，1858年) 翻译。

(II.) 哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《名人传》(De Vir. ill.)，79；《编年史》(Chron.)，325年条（君士坦丁第二十年）；《书信》(Ep.) 46及58，致保利努斯 (Paulinus)。

本笃会士勒努里 (Le Nourry) 博学的《前置论考》(Dissertatio praevia)，载米涅编本，V. 365–714。尼安德 (Neander)：I. 687–689。默勒 (Möhler，罗马天主教)：《教父学》(Patrol.)，I. 906–916。阿尔措格 (Alzog，罗马天主教)：《教父学》(Patrologie，第3版)，第205–210页。青克 (Zink)：《阿尔诺比乌斯文本批判与解释》(Zur Kritik und Erklärung des Arnob.)，班贝格 (Bamb.)，1873年。埃伯特 (Ebert)：《基督教拉丁文学史》(Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit.)，I. 61–70。赫尔佐格 (Herzog)，载赫尔佐格² I. 692及下页。穆尔 (Moule)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，I. 167–169。

阿尔诺比乌斯 (Arnobius) 是一位卓有成就的修辞学教师，门下学生众多（拉克坦提乌斯便是其中之一）；他起初敌视基督教，后来却成为其辩护者。他生活于第三世纪后期和第四世纪初，居住在迦太基西南、努米底亚 (Numidia) 边境的重要城市西卡 (Sicca)。他与两位比他更杰出的非洲同乡德尔图良和居普良一样，都是成年后归信基督的。他在描述这一巨大转变时说：“何等盲目！就在不久以前，我还敬拜刚从炉中取出的偶像，敬拜铁砧和锤子塑造出来的神……每当看见一块磨光并涂了油的石头，我便向它祷告，对它说话，仿佛其中住着一种活的力量，并向这无知无觉的木石求福。我甚至严重侮辱了那些我所认作神的，因为我把他们看作木头、石头和骨头，或者想象他们住在这类东西的材料之中。如今，既有这样一位伟大的教师引导我走上真理之路，我便知道这一切究竟是什么；我以配得上那位配受尊崇者的思想来思想他，不再侮辱神性，并将各人所当得的归给各人……那么，难道不应把基督看作上帝吗？我们在今生已从他领受如此丰厚的恩赐，并盼望在那日来到时从他领受更大的恩赐；这位在其他方面也可被视为至大者的，难道不应受神圣的敬拜吗？”³⁹⁰

倘若我们记得西卡有“维纳里亚”(Veneria) 的别称，是淫欲女神卑污崇拜的中心，那么这种对比的确极为惊人；在这位女神的庙里，少女们像哥林多的阿佛洛狄忒 (Aphrodite) 女祭司一样，献出自己的贞操。因此，他揭露异教诸神的淫乱时格外严厉；在这些神中，朱庇特 (Jupiter) 自己在各样罪恶上都居于首位。³⁹¹

我们对他此后的生平和去世一无所知。哲罗姆是唯一提到他的古代作者，又补充了一些可疑的细节，即他因异象或梦境而归信，起初西卡的主教拒绝接纳他加入教会，于是他匆忙写成自己的护教著作，以证明其诚意。但这部书虽写于他归信后不久，与其说是外在机缘所促成，不如说是内心冲动和坚定信念的产物。

他留给我们一部向外邦人陈述的基督教护教著作，共七卷，篇幅长短不一。此书写于公元303年，³⁹²即戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫爆发之时；因为他提到酷刑、焚烧圣经和拆毁聚会场所，而这些正是那次逼迫的显著特征。³⁹³此书仅存于一份九世纪或十世纪的抄本中，其中还收有米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix) 的《屋大维》(Octavius)。³⁹⁴前两卷是护教性的，其余五卷主要是论战性的。阿尔诺比乌斯对希腊、罗马的神话和文学表现出广博的知识，并大量引用荷马 (Homer)、柏拉图 (Plato)、西塞罗 (Cicero) 和瓦罗 (Varro)。他有力地驳斥了反对基督教的种种论点，首先驳斥当时流行的指控，即基督教为罗马帝国招来了诸神的震怒和种种公共灾难。他详细揭露异教神话的荒谬与不道德。他认为诸神是真实存在的，却是邪恶的存在。

正面阐述的部分则贫乏而不能令人满意。阿尔诺比乌斯似乎与米努基乌斯·费利克斯一样，对圣经所知甚少。他从不引用旧约，引用新约也只有一次。³⁹⁵他对犹太人的历史和摩西所定的敬拜一无所知，并把法利赛人和撒都该人混为一谈。然而，无论是得自福音书还是传统，他对基督的历史倒相当熟悉。他常以愈发热烈的语言述及基督的道成肉身、被钉十字架和升高。他把基督描绘为向人启示上帝的至高教师、永生的赐予者；甚至称他为上帝，虽生而为人，却是在高天的上帝，在其最内在的本性上是上帝，是救主上帝，也是敬拜的对象。³⁹⁶唯有跟从他的人才能得救，但他甚至向自己的仇敌赐下救恩。他的神圣使命由他的神迹证明，而这些神迹又由其独特性、朴实性、公开性和仁慈性得到证实。他曾立刻医治一百名或更多患各样疾病的人；他平息狂暴的风浪，行走海面而双足不湿，使波涛本身也为之惊异；他用五个饼使五千人吃饱，剩下的零碎装满十二个篮子；他又从坟墓中唤起死人。复活以后，他“在光天化日之下向无数人显现”；“即使如今，他仍向那些心思纯洁、爱他的义人显现，不是在任何梦中，而是以纯朴的形态显现。”³⁹⁷

他的上帝论合乎圣经，与荒谬的神话形成鲜明对照。上帝是万有的创造者和统治者，非受生的、无限的、属灵的、无所不在的，不受情欲支配，住在光中，赐下一切美善，并差遣救主。

至于人，阿尔诺比乌斯肯定人的自由意志，也肯定人的无知和罪，却否认人具有不朽性。灵魂在肉体死后仍然存在，但要获得永远存续的恩赐，完全有赖于上帝。恶人进入地狱 (Gehenna) 的火中，最终将被焚尽或归于消灭。他教导肉身复活，却说得含糊不清。

阿尔诺比乌斯没有达到大公教会正统信仰的标准，甚至按尼西亚会议以前的标准衡量也是如此。考虑到他对圣经显然无知，而且归信甚晚，我们对此不必惊讶。哲罗姆时而赞扬他，时而责备他，认为他的文风、方法和教义参差不齐、冗长而混乱。五世纪时，教宗格拉修 (Gelasius) 把他的书逐入伪经目录；此后它几乎被人遗忘，直到十六世纪才重见天日。近代批评家一致认为，他驳斥谬误的成就，胜于他捍卫真理的成就。

然而，这位归信者对于新信仰的诚实、勇气和热忱，与他神学上的缺陷一样显而易见。即使他不知道或不清楚理解圣经的教义，却把握住了圣经的道德精神。³⁹⁸他说：“我们从基督的教训和律法中学到，不应以恶报恶（参《马太福音》5:39）；受人亏负胜于亏负人；我们宁可流自己的血，也不可让别人的血玷污自己的双手和良心。这忘恩负义的世界，如今长久以来一直享受着基督的恩惠；因为借着他的影响，野蛮残暴的怒气已被缓和，受到约束，不再流同类的血。倘若人人都肯倾听他那有益而和平的律法，世界便会把钢铁转用于和平的事业，在蒙福的和谐中生活，维护条约的神圣，不加侵犯。”³⁹⁹他义愤填膺地质问异教徒：“我们的著作为何该被投入火中，我们的聚会为何该被残酷地驱散？在这些聚会中，人们向至高的上帝祈祷，为一切掌权者、军人、君王、朋友、仇敌，为那些仍在世上和那些已经脱离肉身束缚的人，祈求平安与赦免。在这些聚会中，一切所说的话，都是要使人仁慈、温柔、谦逊、有德、贞洁，慷慨施舍自己的财物，并与所有归入我们弟兄团契的人紧密相联，不可分离。”⁴⁰⁰面对最后一次、也是最残酷的逼迫，他勇敢地作出了见证；他自己也很可能是这次逼迫的受害者之一。

阿尔诺比乌斯的著作，是古物学、神话学知识以及非洲拉丁语的丰富宝库。

§ 203. 佩陶的维克托里努斯

(I.) 《著作集》(Opera)，载《古代教父大丛书》(Max. Biblioth. vet. Patrum.)，里昂 (Lugd.)，第III卷；加兰迪 (Gallandi)《教父丛书》(Bibl. PP.)，第IV卷；以及米涅 (Migne)《拉丁教父集》(Patrol. Lat.)，V. 281–344（《论世界的创造》[De Fabrica Mundi]及《约翰启示录疏注》[Scholia in Apoc. Joannis]）。

R. E. 沃利斯 (R. E. Wallis) 英译，载克拉克 (Clark)《尼西亚前文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)，第III卷，第388–433页；纽约版，第VII卷（1886年）。

(II.) 哲罗姆：《名人传》(De. Vir. ill.)，74。卡西奥多鲁斯 (Cassiodor)：《神圣文献导论》(Justit. Div. Lit.)，第9章。凯夫 (Cave)：《文学史》(Hist. Lit.)，I.，第147页及下页。伦佩尔 (Lumper) 的《绪论》(Proleg.)，载米涅编本，V. 281–302。劳斯 (Routh)：《圣文遗存》(Reliq., S.)，I.，65；III.，455–481。

维克托里努斯 (Victorinus) 可能出身希腊血统，起初以修辞学教师为业，后来成为古代潘诺尼亚 (Panonia) 的佩塔维乌姆 (Petavium)，又称佩塔比奥 (Petabio) 的主教；⁴⁰¹该城即今奥地利施蒂里亚 (Styria) 的佩陶 (Petau)。他在戴克里先的逼迫中殉道（303年）。他的著作仅存残篇，除了因其所属的年代而有价值之外，并无多大重要性。哲罗姆说，他通晓希腊文胜于拉丁文，著作内容优异，文风却欠佳。哲罗姆将他列在千禧年派 (Chiliasts) 之中，并将《创世记》《出埃及记》《利未记》《以赛亚书》《以西结书》《哈巴谷书》《雅歌》《启示录》的注释，以及一部《驳一切异端》归于他名下，“et multa alia”（以及许多其他著作）。还有几首诗也被归于他，但没有充分根据。⁴⁰²

《论世界的创造》(Creation of the World) 残篇，是一系列关于创造记载的札记，可能是哲罗姆所提《创世记》注释的一部分。作者对这些日子作宽泛的理解。天使和天使长的创造先于人的创造，正如光的造成先于天空和大地一样。七日预表七个千年；第七个千年就是千禧年的安息日，那时基督将与他的选民在地上作王。这与我们在《巴拿巴书信》中所见的千禧年观念相同，也同样反对犹太人的守安息日主义。维克托里努斯将七日比作耶和华的七眼（《撒迦利亚书》4:10）、七层天（参《诗篇》33:6）、住在基督里面的七灵（《以赛亚书》11:2、3），以及他人性生活的七个阶段：降生、婴孩期、童年、少年、青年、壮年、死亡。这可以充分代表虔诚想象所作的这类寓意游戏。
《约翰启示录》(Apocalypse of John) 疏注，对于这部奥秘之书的解释史并非没有意义。⁴⁰³但其中夹有五世纪或六世纪后人插入的文字。作者将《启示录》的写作年代定在图密善统治期间（在这一点上与爱任纽一致），并将历史解释法与寓意解释法结合起来。他也认为，其中一部分异象是同时发生的，而非先后相继的。他仅对较难的经文加以注释。⁴⁰⁴我们选述其中最引人注意的几点。

第12章的妇人是先知和使徒的古代教会；龙是魔鬼。坐在七山上的妇人（第17章）是罗马城。从无底坑上来的兽是罗马帝国；图密善被算作第六位罗马王，涅尔瓦 (Nerva) 是第七位，复生的尼禄则是第八位。⁴⁰⁵666这个数目（13:18），在希腊文中指 Teitan⁴⁰⁶（这是爱任纽所倾向的解释），在拉丁文中则指 Diclux。按照希腊和罗马字母的数值，这两个名字都指敌基督。但 Diclux 是以反衬的方式表达这一意义，因为敌基督“虽然已与天上的光隔绝，却仍把自己装作光明的天使，竟敢自称为光”。⁴⁰⁷在这一奇特的解释之后，显然有晚得多的后人添入一段文字，把这神秘数目应用于汪达尔王盖塞里克 (Genseric，γενσήρικος^*)；他在五世纪蹂躏北非的大公教会，并洗劫罗马城。

对第20章1–6节的解释，其千禧年色彩不及《创世记注释》中的相应段落浓厚，因此有人否认两者出自同一作者。第一次复活参照《歌罗西书》3:1作属灵的解释；至于这一千年应理解为无穷尽的，还是有限的，作者任凭读者选择。随后，他又对数字作寓意解释：十象征十诫，一百象征童贞的冠冕；因为那完全遵守童贞誓愿、履行十诫的训令，并在自己内心隐秘处灭绝污秽意念的人，才是基督真正的祭司，与他一同作王；而且“就他而言，魔鬼确实被捆绑了”。在第22章疏注的结尾，作者否定了异端者克林妥 (Cerinthus) 那种粗俗而感官化的千禧年论。他说：“因为基督的国如今在圣徒里面已是永恒的，虽然圣徒的荣耀要在复活以后才显明。”⁴⁰⁸这看来像是后人增补的文字，表明君士坦丁 (Constantine) 的统治在教会的千禧年观念上带来了变化。此后，千禧年便从基督道成肉身起算。⁴⁰⁹

§ 204. 优西比乌、拉克坦提乌斯、何西乌

关于优西比乌 (Eusebius)，参第III卷，第871–879页。——文献增补：莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教的详尽论文，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，II.（1880年），第308–348页；萨蒙 (Salmon) 博士论优西比乌《编年史》(Chron. of Eus.)，同上，第354–355页；以及泽米施 (Semisch)，载赫尔佐格 (Herzog)² IV. 390–398。

关于拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)，参第III卷，第955–959页。——文献增补：埃伯特 (Ebert)：《基督教拉丁文学史》(Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit.)，I.（1874年），第70–86页；以及他载于赫尔佐格² VIII. 364–366的论文；另有 E. S. 富尔克斯 (E. S. Ffoulkes)，载史密斯与韦斯 III. 613–617。

关于何西乌 (Hosius)，参§ 55，第179页及后；以及第III卷，第627、635、636页。——文献增补：P. 博尼法茨·加姆斯 (P. Bonif. Gams，罗马天主教)：《西班牙教会史》(Kirchengesch. v. Spanien)，雷根斯堡 (Regensb.)，1862年及后，第II卷，第137–309页（第二卷大部分篇幅论述何西乌）；W. 默勒 (W. Möller)，载赫尔佐格² VI. 326–328；以及 T. D. C. 莫尔斯 (T. D. C. Morse)，载史密斯与韦斯 III. 162–174。

在本时期结束之际，我们遇到三位有代表性的神学家，他们与第一位基督徒皇帝关系密切；这位皇帝促成了那场称为政教联合的政治与教会革命。他们的公共生涯和工作属于下一个时期，但在这里至少必须略作预述。

历史家优西比乌 (Eusebius)、修辞学家拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius) 和政治家何西乌 (Hosius)，构成了尼西亚前时期与尼西亚时期之间的纽带；他们漫长的一生——前两人活到八十余岁，何西乌则活到百岁——几乎平均分属于这两个时期，也映照出二者的光明与阴暗。⁴¹⁰ 优西比乌是凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的主教，学识广博而切实有用，也是一位思想宽宏的神学家；拉克坦提乌斯是尼科米底亚 (Nicomedia) 的雄辩术教授，具有优雅的文化修养；何西乌是科尔多瓦 (Cordova) 的主教，既善谋划，也善行动。⁴¹¹ 因此，他们分别代表了圣地、小亚细亚和西班牙；我们还可以加上意大利和北非，因为拉克坦提乌斯可能生于意大利，并曾受业于西卡 (Sicca) 的阿尔诺比乌 (Arnobius)，而何西乌在东方的会议上，也在一定程度上代表了整个西方教会。随着何西乌的出现，西班牙才首次从传说的朦胧微光中，进入教会历史的明朗日光之下；这片西方的边陲之地，保罗或许曾经到访，曾为异教罗马贡献了哲学家塞涅卡 (Seneca) 和皇帝图拉真 (Trajan)，以后又要贡献尼西亚信仰的坚强捍卫者狄奥多西大帝 (Theodosius the Great)。

优西比乌、拉克坦提乌斯和何西乌都目睹了戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫的残酷，也都欢庆帝王庇护时代的到来。他们把殉道时期的道德力量带进了胜利时期。优西比乌以勤奋的著述工作，为我们保存了最初三个世纪直到尼西亚会议的无价文献；拉克坦提乌斯以西塞罗式的拉丁文，为后世留下了针对日趋衰落的希腊、罗马偶像崇拜而作的基督教阐释与辩护，也留下了关于那些施行逼迫的皇帝的悲惨记述；何西乌则是埃尔维拉 (Elvira，306年)、尼西亚 (Nicaea，325年) 和撒狄迦 (Sardica，347年) 诸会议的主导人物，也是亚他那修 (Athanasius) 在捍卫正统信仰和流放生活中的朋友。

三人都与君士坦丁大帝 (Constantine the Great) 关系密切：优西比乌是他的朋友和颂扬者，拉克坦提乌斯是他长子的导师，何西乌则是他信赖的顾问，很可能就是何西乌向他提出了召开第一次大公会议的主张；可以说，何西乌曾有几年担任他的教会事务首相。在那场使十字架的宗教取得对庞大罗马帝国的道德支配地位的伟大变革中，他们各以自己的方式，成为皇帝的主要顾问和助手。经过三百年不公正的逼迫与英勇的忍耐，这场胜利是当之无愧的；然而，它也充满了考验和试探，对教会的纯洁与和平所构成的危险，并不亚于烈火与刀剑。

Original Text

CHAPTER XIII. ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE, AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE CHURCH-FATHERS.

§ 159. Literature.

I. General Patristic Collections.

The Benedictine editions, repeatedly published in Paris, Venice, etc., are the best as far as they go, but do not satisfy the present state of criticism. Jesuits (Petavius, Sirmond, Harduin), and Dominicans (Combefis, Le Quien) have also published several fathers. These and more recent editions are mentioned in the respective sections. Of patristic collections the principal ones are:

Maxima Bibliotheca veteru Patrum, etc. Lugd. 1677, 27 tom. fol. Contains the less voluminous writers, and only in the Latin translation.

A. Gallandi (Andreas Gallandius, Oratorian, d. 1779): Bibliotheca Graeco-Latina veterum Patrum, etc. Ven. 1765–88, 14 tom. fol. Contains in all 380 ecclesiastical writers (180 more than the Bibl Max.) in Greek and Latin, with valuable dissertations and notes.

Abbé Migne (Jacques Paul, b. 1800, founder of the Ultramontane L’Univers religeux and the Cath. printing establishment at Montrouge, consumed by fire 1868): Patrologiae cursus completus sive Bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque ecelesiasticorum. Petit Montrouge (near Paris), 1844–1866 (Garnier Frères). The cheapest and most complete patristic library, but carelessly edited, and often inaccurate, reaching down to the thirteenth century, the Latin in 222, the Greek in 167 vols., reprinted from the Bened. and other good editions, with Prolegomena, Vitae, Dissertations, Supplements, etc. Some of the plates were consumed by fire in 1868. but have been replaced. To be used with great caution.

Abbé Horoy: Bibliotheca Patristica ab anno MCCXVI. usque ad Concilii Tridentini Tempora. Paris, 1879 sqq. A continuation of Migne. Belongs to mediaeval history.

A new and critical edition of the Latin Fathers has been undertaken by the Imperial Academy of Vienna in 1866, under the title: Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. The first volume contains the works of Sulpicius Severus, ed. by C. Halm, 1866; the second Minucius Felix and Jul. Firmicus Maternus, by the same, 1867; Cyprian by Hartel, 1876; Arnobius by Reifferscheid; Commodianus by Dombart; Salvianus by Pauly; Cassianus by Petscheig; Priscillian by Schepss, etc. So far 18 vols. from 1866 to 1889.

A new and critical edition of the Greek fathers is still more needed.

Handy editions of the older fathers by Oberthur, Richter, Gersdorf, etc.

Special collections of patristic fragments by Grabe (Spicilegium Patrum), Routh (Reliquiae Sacrae), Angelo Mai (Scriptorum vet. nova Collectio, Rom. 1825–’38, 10 t.; Spicilegium roman. 1839–’44, 10 t.; Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, 1852 sqq. 7 t.); Card. Pitra (Spicilegium Solesmense, 1852 sqq. 5 t.), Liverani (Spiciles Liberianum, 1865), and others.

II. Separate Collections of the ante-Nicene Fathers.

Patres Apostolici, best critical editions, one Protestant by Oscar Von Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn (ed. II. Lips. 1876–’78, in 3 parts); another by Hilgenfeld (ed. II. Lips. 1876 sqq. in several parts); one by Bp. Lightfoot (Lond. 1869 sqq.); and one, R. Catholic, by Bp. Hefele, fifth ed. by Prof Funk, Tübingen (1878 and ’81, 2 vols.). See § 161.

Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Seculi II., Ed. Otto. Jenae, 1847–’50; Ed. III. 1876 sqq. A new critical ed. by O. v. Gebhardt and E. Schwartz. Lips. 1888 sqq.

Roberts and Donaldson: Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Edinburgh 1857–1872. 24 vols. Authorized reprint, N. York, 1885–’86, 8 vol.

III. Biographical, critical, doctrinal. Patristics and Patrology.

St. Jerome (d. 419): De Viris illustrious. Comprises, in 135 numbers, brief notices of the biblical and ecclesiastical authors, down to a.d. 393. Continuations by Gennadius (490), Isidor (636), Ildefons (667), and others.

Photius (d. 890): Muriobivblion, h{ biblioqhvkh, ed. J. Becker, Berol. 1824, 2 t. fol., and in Migne, Phot. Opera, t. III. and IV. Extracts of 280 Greek authors, heathen and Christian, whose works are partly lost. See a full account in Hergenröther’s, Photius, III. 13–31.

Bellermin (R.C.): Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (from the O. T. to a.d. 1500). Rom. 1613 and often.

Tillemont (R.C.): Memoirs pour servir à l’histoire ecclés. Par. 1693 sqq. 16 vols. The first six centuries.

L. E. Dupin (R.C. d. 1719): Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, contenant l’histoire de leur vie, etc. Par. 1688–1715, 47 vols. 8°, with continuations by Coujet, Petit-Didier to the 18^th century, and Critiques of R. Simon, 61 vols., 9^th ed. Par. 1698 sqq.; another edition, but incomplete, Amstel. 1690–1713, 20 vols. 4°.

Remi Ceillter (R.C. d. 1761): Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclesiastiques. Par. 1729–’63, 23 vols. 4°; new ed. with additions, Par. 1858–1865 in 14 vols. More complete and exact, but less liberal than Dupin; extends to the middle of the thirteenth century.

Will. Cave (Anglican, d. 1713): Scriptorum ecelesiasticorum Historia a Christo nato usque ad saecul. XIV. Lond. 1688–98, 2 vols.; Geneva, 1720; Colon. 1722; best edition superintended by Waterland, Oxf. 1740–43, reprinted at Basle 1741–’45. This work is arranged in the centurial style (saeculum Apostolicum, s. Gnosticuni, s. Novatianum, s. Arianum, s. Nestorianum, s. Eutychianum, s. Monotheleticum, etc.) W. Cave: Lives of the most eminent fathers of the church that flourished in the first four centuries. Best ed. revised by Henry Cary. Oxf. 1840, 3 vols.

Chas. Oudin (first a monk, then a Protestant, librarian to the University at Leyden, died 1717): Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis illorumque scriptis, a Bellarmino, Possevino, Caveo, Dupin et aliis omissis, ad ann. 1460. Lips. 1722. 3 vols. fol.

John Alb. Fabricius ("the most learned, the most voluminous and the most useful of bibliographers." born at Leipsic 1668. Prof. of Eloquence at Hamburg, died 1736): Bibliotheca Graeca, sive notilia Scriptorum veterum Graecorum; ed. III. Hamb. 1718–’28, 14 vols.; ed. IV. by G. Chr. Harless, with additions. Hamb. 1790–1811, in 12 vols. (incomplete). This great work of forty years’ labor embraces all the Greek writers to the beginning of the eighteenth century, but is inconveniently arranged. (A valuable supplement to it is S. F. G. Hoffmann: Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammten Literatur der Griechen, Leipz. 3 vols.), 2^nd ed. 1844–’45. J. A. Fabricius published also a Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, Hamb. 173 ’46, in 6 vols. (enlarged by Mansi, Padua, 1754, 3 tom.), and a Bibliotheca ecclesiastical Hamb. 1718, in 1 vol. fol., which contains the catalogues of ecclesiastical authors by Jerome, Gennadius, Isidore, Ildefondus, Trithemius (d. 1515) and others.

C. T. G. Schönemann: Bibliotheca historico-literaria patrum Latinorum a Tertulliano usque ad Gregorina M. et Isidorum . Lips. 1792, 2 vols. A continuation of Fabricius’ Biblioth. Lat.

G. Lumper (R.C.): Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis et doctrina SS. Patrum trium primorum saeculorum. Aug. Vind. 1783–’99, 13 t. 8°.

A.. Möhler (R.C. d. 1838): Patrologie, oder christliche Literärgeschichte. Edited by Reithmayer. Regensb. 1840, vol. I. Covers only the first three centuries.

J. Fessler (R.C.): Institutiones patrologicae. Oenip. 1850–’52, 2vols.

J. C. F. Bähr: Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Karlsruhe, 1836, 4^th ed. 1868.

Fr. Böhringer (d, 1879): Die Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen, oder die K. G. in Biographien. Zür. 1842 (2d ed. 1861 sqq. and 1873 sqq.), 2 vols. in 7 parts (to the sixteenth century).

Joh. Alzog (R.C., Prof. in Freiburg, d. 1878): Grundriss der Patrologie oder der älteren christl. Literärgeschichte. Frieburg, 1866; second ed. 1869; third ed. 1876; fourth ed. 1888.

James Donaldson: A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council. London, 1864–’66. 3 vols. Very valuable, but unfinished.

Jos. Schwane (R.C.): Dogmengeschichte der patristischen Zeit. Münster, 1866.

Adolf Ebert: Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Literatur von ihren Anfängen bis zum Zeitalter Karls des Grossen Leipzig, 1872 (624 pages). The first vol. of a larger work on the general history of mediaeval literature. The second vol. (1880) contains the literature from Charlemagne to Charles the Bald.

Jos. Nirschl (R.C.): Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik. Mainz. Vol. I. 1881 (VI. and 384).

George A. Jackson: Early Christian Literature Primers. N. York, 1879–1883 in 4 little vols., containing extracts from the fathers.

Fr. W. Farrar: Lives of the Fathers. Sketches of Church History in Biographies. Lond. and N. York, 1889, 2 vols.

IV. On the Authority and Use of the Fathers.

Dallaeus (Daillé, Calvinist): De usu Patrum in decidendis controversiis. Genev. 1656 (and often). Against the superstitious and slavish R. Catholic overvaluation of the fathers.

J. W. Eberl (R.C.): Leitfaden zum Studium der Patrologie. Augsb. 1854.

J. J. Blunt (Anglican): The Right Use of the Early Fathers. Lond. 1857, 3^rd ed. 1859. Confined to the first three centuries, and largely polemical against the depreciation of the fathers, by Daillé, Barbeyrat, and Gibbon.

V. On the Philosophy of the Fathers.

H. Ritter: Geschichte der christl Philosophie. Hamb. 1841 sqq. 2 vols.

Joh. Huber (d. 1879 as an Old Catholic): Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter. München, 1859.

A. Stöckl (R.C.): Geschichte der Philosophie der patristischen Zeit. Würz b. 1858, 2 vols.; and Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Mainz, 1864–1866. 3 vols.

Friedr. Ueberweg. History of Philosophy (Engl. transl. by Morris & Porter). N. Y. 1876 (first vol.).

VI. Patristic Dictionaries.

J. C. Suicer (d. in Zurich, 1660): Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e Patribus Graecis. Amstel., 1682, second ed., much improved, 1728. 2 vols. for. (with a new title page. Utr. 1746).

Du Cange (Car. Dufresne a Benedictine, d. 1688): Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis. Lugd. 1688. 2 vols. By the same: Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Latinitatis. Par. 1681, again 1733, 6 vols. fol., re-edited by Carpenter 1766, 4 vols., and by Henschel, Par. 1840–’50, 7 vols. A revised English edition of Du Cange by E. A. Dayman was announced for publication by John Murray (London), but has not yet appeared, in 1889.

E. A. Sophocles: A glossary of Latin and Byzantine Greek. Boston, 1860, enlarged ed. 1870. A new ed. by Jos. H. Thayer, 1888.

G. Koffmane: Geschichte des Kirchlateins. Breslau, 1879 sqq.

Wm. Smith and Henry Wace (Anglicans): A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines London, Vol. I. 18771887, 4 vols. By far the best patristic biographical Dictionary in the English or any other language. A noble monument of the learning of the Church of England.

E. C. Richardson (Hartford, Conn.): Bibliographical Synapsis of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. An appendix to the Am. Ed. of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, N. York, 1887. Very complete.

§ 160. A General Estimate of the Fathers.

As Christianity is primarily a religion of divine facts, and a new moral creation, the literary and scientific element in its history held, at first, a secondary and subordinate place. Of the apostles, Paul alone received a learned education, and even he made his rabbinical culture and great natural talents subservient to the higher spiritual knowledge imparted to him by revelation. But for the very reason that it is a new life, Christianity must produce also a new science and literature; partly from the inherent impulse of faith towards deeper and clearer knowledge of its object for its own satisfaction; partly from the demands of self-preservation against assaults from without; partly from the practical want of instruction and direction for the people. The church also gradually appropriated the classical culture, and made it tributary to her theology. Throughout the middle ages she was almost the sole vehicle and guardian of literature and art, and she is the mother of the best elements of the modern European and American civilization. We have already treated of the mighty intellectual labor of our period on the field of apologetic, polemic, and dogmatic theology. In this section we have to do with patrology, or the biographical and bibliographical matter of the ancient theology and literature.

The ecclesiastical learning of the first six centuries was cast almost entirely in the mould of the Graeco-Roman culture. The earliest church fathers, even Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Hippolytus, who lived and labored in and about Rome, used the Greek language, after the example of the apostles, with such modifications as the Christian ideas required. Not till the end of the second century, and then not in Italy, but in North Africa, did the Latin language also become, through Tertullian, a medium of Christian science and literature. The Latin church, however, continued for a long time dependent on the learning of the Greek. The Greek church was more excitable, speculative, and dialectic; the Latin more steady, practical, and devoted to outward organization; though we have on both sides striking exceptions to this rule, in the Greek Chrysostom, who was the greatest pulpit orator, and the Latin Augustin, who was the profoundest speculative theologian among the fathers.

The patristic literature in general falls considerably below the classical in elegance of form, but far surpasses it in the sterling quality of its matter. It wears the servant form of its master, during the days of his flesh, not the splendid, princely garb of this world. Confidence in the power of the Christian truth made men less careful of the form in which they presented it. Besides, many of the oldest Christian writers lacked early education, and had a certain aversion to art, from its manifold perversion in those days to the service of idolatry and immorality. But some of them, even in the second and third centuries, particularly Clement and Origen, stood at the head of their age in learning and philosophical culture; and in the fourth and fifth centuries, the literary productions of an Athanasius, a Gregory, a Chrysostom, an Augustin, and a Jerome, excelled the contemporaneous heathen literature in every respect. Many fathers, like the two Clements, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and among the later ones, even Jerome and Augustin, embraced Christianity after attaining adult years; and it is interesting to notice with what enthusiasm, energy, and thankfulness they laid hold upon it.

The term "church-father" originated in the primitive custom of transferring the idea of father to spiritual relationships, especially to those of teacher, priest, and bishop. In the case before us the idea necessarily includes that of antiquity, involving a certain degree of general authority for all subsequent periods and single branches of the church. Hence this title of honor is justly limited to the more distinguished teachers of the first five or six centuries, excepting, of course, the apostles, who stand far above them all as the inspired organs of Christ. It applies, therefore, to the period of the oecumenical formation of doctrines, before the separation of Eastern and Western Christendom. The line of the Latin fathers is generally closed with Pope Gregory I. (d. 604), the line of the Greek with John of Damascus (d. about 754).

Besides antiquity, or direct connection with the formative age of the whole church, learning, holiness, orthodoxy, and the approbation of the church, or general recognition, are the qualifications for a church father. These qualifications, however, are only relative. At least we cannot apply the scale of fully developed orthodoxy, whether Greek, Roman, or Evangelical, to the ante-Nicene fathers. Their dogmatic conceptions were often very indefinite and uncertain. In fact the Roman church excludes a Tertullian for his Montanism, an Origen for his Platonic and idealistic views, an Eusebius for his semi-Arianism, also Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Theodoret, and other distinguished divines, from the list of "fathers" (Patres), and designates them merely "ecclesiastical writers" (Scriptores Ecclastici).

In strictness, not a single one of the ante-Nicene fathers fairly agrees with the Roman standard of doctrine in all points. Even Irenaeus and Cyprian differed from the Roman bishop, the former in reference to Chiliasm and Montanism, the latter on the validity of heretical baptism. Jerome is a strong witness against the canonical value of the Apocrypha. Augustin, the greatest authority of Catholic theology among the fathers, is yet decidedly evangelical in his views on sin and grace, which were enthusiastically revived by Luther and Calvin, and virtually condemned by the Council of Trent. Pope Gregory the Great repudiated the title "ecumenical bishop" as an antichristian assumption, and yet it is comparatively harmless as compared with the official titles of his successors, who claim to be the Vicars of Christ, the viceregents of God Almighty on earth, and the infallible organs of the Holy Ghost in all matters of faith and discipline. None of the ancient fathers and doctors knew anything of the modern Roman dogmas of the immaculate conception (1854) and papal infallibility (1870). The "unanimous consent of the fathers" is a mere illusion, except on the most fundamental articles of general Christianity. We must resort here to a liberal conception of orthodoxy, and duly consider the necessary stages of progress in the development of Christian doctrine in the, church.

On the other hand the theology of the fathers still less accords with the Protestant standard of orthodoxy. We seek in vain among them for the evangelical doctrines of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, justification by faith alone, the universal priesthood of the laity; and we find instead as early as the second century a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions, meritorious and even over-meritorious works, and strong sacerdotal, sacramentarian, ritualistic, and ascetic tendencies, which gradually matured in the Greek and Roman types of catholicity. The Church of England always had more sympathy with the fathers than the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches, and professes to be in full harmony with the creed, the episcopal polity, and liturgical worship of antiquity before the separation of the east and the west; but the difference is only one of degree; the Thirty-Nine Articles are as thoroughly evangelical as the Augsburg Confession or the Westminster standards; and even the modern Anglo-Catholic school, the most churchly and churchy of all, Ignores many tenets and usages which were considered of vital importance in the first centuries, and holds others which were unknown before the sixteenth century. The reformers were as great and good men as the fathers, but both must bow before the apostles. There is a steady progress of Christianity, an ever-deepening understanding and an ever-widening application of its principles and powers, and there are yet many hidden treasures in the Bible which will be brought to light in future ages.

In general the excellences of the church fathers are very various. Polycarp is distinguished, not for genius or learning, but for patriarchal simplicity and dignity; Clement of Rome, for the gift of administration; Ignatius, for impetuous devotion to episcopacy, church unity, and Christian martyrdom; Justin, for apologetic zeal and extensive reading; Irenaeus, for sound doctrine and moderation; Clement of Alexandria, for stimulating fertility of thought; Origen, for brilliant learning and bold speculation; Tertullian, for freshness and vigor of intellect, and sturdiness of character; Cyprian, for energetic churchliness; Eusebius, for literary industry in compilation; Lactantius, for elegance of style. Each had also his weakness. Not one compares for a moment in depth and spiritual fulness with a St. Paul or St. John; and the whole patristic literature, with all its incalculable value, must ever remain very far below the New Testament. The single epistle to the Romans or the Gospel of John is worth more than all commentaries, doctrinal, polemic, and ascetic treatises of the Greek and Latin fathers, schoolmen, and reformers.

The ante-Nicene fathers may be divided into five or six classes:

(1.) The apostolic fathers, or personal disciples of the apostles. Of these, Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius are the most eminent.

(2.) The apologists for Christianity against Judaism and heathenism: Justin Martyr and his successors to the end of the second century.

(3.) The controversialists against heresies within the church: Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, at the close of the second century and beginning of the third.

(4.) The Alexandrian school of philosophical theology: Clement and Origen, in the first half of the third century.

(5.) The contemporary but more practical North African school of Tertullian and Cyprian.

(6.) Then there were also the germs of the Antiochian school, and some less prominent writers, who can be assigned to no particular class.

Together with the genuine writings of the church fathers there appeared in the first centuries, in behalf both of heresy and of orthodoxy, a multitude of apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypses, under the names of apostles and of later celebrities; also Jewish and heathen prophecies of Christianity, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Books of Hydaspes, Of Hermas Trismegistos, and of the Sibyls. The frequent use made of such fabrications of an idle imagination even by eminent church teachers, particularly by the apologists, evinces not only great credulity and total want of literary criticism, but also a very imperfect development of the sense of truth, which had not yet learned utterly to discard the pia fraus as immoral falsehood.

Notes.

The Roman church extends the line of the Patres, among whom she further distinguishes a small number of Doctores ecclesiae emphatically so-called, down late into the middle ages, and reckons in it Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and the divines of the Council of Trent, resting on her claim to exclusive catholicity, which is recognized neither by the Greek nor the Evangelical church. The marks of a Doctor Ecclesiae are: 1) eminens eruditio; 2) doctrina orthodoxa; 3) sanctitas vitae; 4) expressa ecclesiae declaratio. The Roman Church recognizes as Doctores Ecclesiae the following Greek fathers: Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus, and the following Latin fathers: Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, Hilarius of Poitiers, Leo I. and Gregory I., together with the mediaeval divines Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura and Bernard of Clairvaux. The distinction between doctores ecclesiae and patres eccelesiae was formally recognized by Pope Boniface VIII. in a decree of 1298, in which Ambrose, Augustin, Jerome, and Gregory the Great are designated as magni doctores ecclesiae, who deserve a higher degree of veneration. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and St. Bernard were added to the list by papal decree in 1830, Hilary in 1852, Alfonso Maria da Liguori in 1871. Anselm of Canterbury and a few others are called doctores in the liturgical service, without special decree. The long line of popes has only furnished two fathers, Leo I. and Gregory I. The Council of Trent first speaks of the "unanimis consensus patrum," which is used in the same sense as "doctrina ecclesia."

§ 161. The Apostolic Fathers.

Sources

Patrum Apostolicorum Opera. Best editions by O. von Gebhardt, A. Harnack, Th. Zahn, Lips. 1876–’8. 3 vols. (being the third ed. of Dressel much improved); by Fr. Xav. Funk (R.C.), Tüb. 1878 and 1881, 2 vols. (being the 5^th and enlarged edition of Hefele); by A. Hilgenfeld (Tübingen school): Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum, Lips. 1866, superseded by the revised ed. appearing in parts (Clemens R., 1876; Barnabas, 1877; Hermas, 1881); and by Bishop Lightfoot, Lond. and Cambr. 1869, 1877, and 1885 (including Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, with a full critical apparatus, English translations and valuable notes; upon the whole the best edition as far as it goes.)

Older editions by B. Cotelerius (Cotelier, R.C.), Par. 1672, 2 vols. fol., including the spurious works; republ. and ed. by J. Clericus (Le Clerc), Antw. 1698, 2^nd ed. Amst. 1724, 2 vols.; Th. Ittig, 1699; Frey, Basel, 1742; R. Russel, Lond. 1746, 2 vols. (the genuine works); Hornemann, Havniae, 1828; Guil. Jacobson, Oxon. 1838, ed. IV. 1866, 2 vols. (very elegant and accurate, with valuable notes, but containing only Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Xartyria of Ign. and Polyc.); C. J. Hefele (R.C.), Tüb. 1839, ed. IV. 1855, 1 vol. (very handy, with learned and judicious prolegomena and notes); A. R. M. Dressel. Lips. 1857, second ed. 1863 (more complete, and based on new MSS. Hefele’s and Dressel’s edd. are superseded by the first two above mentioned.

English translations of the Apost. Fathers by Archbishop W. Wake (d. 1737), Lond. 1693, 4^th ed. 1737, and often republished (in admirable style, though with many inaccuracies); by Alex. Roberts and James Donaldson, in the first vol. of Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Christian Library." Edinb. 1867 (superior to Wake in accuracy, but inferior in old English flavor); by Chs. H. Hoole, Lond. 1870 and 1872; best by Lightfoot (Clement R. in Appendix, 1877). An excellent German translation by H. Scholz, Gütersloh, 1865 (in the style of Luther’s Bible version).

Works

The Prolegomena to the editions just named, particularly those of the first four.

A. Schwegler: Das nacha postolische Zeitalter, Tüb. 1846. 2 vols. A very able but hypercritical reconstruction from the Tübingen school, full of untenable hypotheses, assigning the Gospels, Acts, the Catholic and later Pauline Epistles to the post-apostolic age, and measuring every writer by his supposed Petrine or Pauline tendency, and his relation to Ebionism and Gnosticism.

A. Hilgenfeld: Die apostolischen Väter. Halle, 1853.

J. H. B. Lubkert: Die Theologie der apostolischen Väter, in the "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." Leipz. 1854.

Abbé Freppel (Prof. at the Sorbonne): Les Pères Apostoliques et leur epoque, second ed. Paris, 1859. Strongly Roman Catholic.

Lechler: Das Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalter. Stuttgart, 1857, p. 476–495; 3d ed., thoroughly revised (Leipz., 1885), p. 526 -608.

James Donaldson (LL. D.): A Critical History of Christian Literature, etc. Vol. I. The Apost. Fathers. Edinburgh, 1864. The same, separately publ. under the title: The Apostolic Fathers: A critical account of their genuine writings and of their doctrines. London, 1874 (412 pages). Ignatius is omitted. A work of honest and sober Protestant learning.

George A. Jackson: The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the Second Century. New York 1879. Popular, with extracts (pages 203).

J. M. Cotterill: Peregrinus Proteus. Edinburgh, 1879. A curious book, by a Scotch Episcopalian, who tries to prove that the two Epistles of Clement, the Epistle to Diognetus, and other ancient writings, were literary frauds perpetrated by Henry Stephens and others in the time of the revival of letters in the sixteenth century.

Josef Sprinzl, (R.C.): Die Theologie der apost. Väter. Wien, 1880. Tries to prove the entire agreement of the Ap. Fathers with the modern Vatican theology.

The "apostolic," or rather post-apostolic "fathers"(1) were the first church teachers after the apostles, who had enjoyed in part personal intercourse with them, and thus form the connecting link between them and the apologists of the second century. This class consists of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and, in a broader sense, Hermas, Papias, and the unknown authors of the Epistle to Diognetus, and of the Didache.

Of the outward life of these men, their extraction, education, and occupation before conversion, hardly anything is known. The distressed condition of that age was very unfavorable to authorship; and more than this, the spirit of the primitive church regarded the new life in Christ as the only true life, the only one worthy of being recorded. Even of the lives of the apostles themselves before their call we have only a few hints. But the pious story of the martyrdom of several of these fathers, as their entrance into perfect life, has been copiously written. They were good men rather than great men, and excelled more in zeal and devotion to Christ than in literary attainments. They were faithful practical workers, and hence of more use to the church in those days than profound thinkers or great scholars could have been. "While the works of Tacitus, Sueton, Juvenal, Martial, and other contemporary heathen authors are filled with the sickening details of human folly, vice, and crime, these humble Christian pastors are ever burning with the love of God and men, exhort to a life of purity and holiness in imitation of the example of Christ, and find abundant strength and comfort amid trial and persecution in their faith, and the hope of a glorious immortality in heaven."(2)

The extant works of the apostolic fathers are of small compass, a handful of letters on holy living and dying, making in all a volume of about twice the size of the New Testament. Half of these (several Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Pastor of Hermas) are of doubtful genuineness; but they belong at all events to that, obscure and mysterious transition period between the end of the first century and the middle of the second. They all originated, not in scientific study, but in practical religious feeling, and contain not analyses of doctrine so much as simple direct assertions of faith and exhortations to holy life; all, excepting Hermas and the Didache, in the form of epistles after the model of Paul’s.(3) Yet they show the germs of the apologetic, polemic, dogmatic, and ethic theology, as well as the outlines of the organization and the cultus of the ancient Catholic church. Critical research has to assign to them their due place in the external and internal development of the church; in doing this it needs very great caution to avoid arbitrary construction.

If we compare these documents with the canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, it is evident at once that they fall far below in original force, depth, and fulness of spirit, and afford in this a strong indirect proof of the inspiration of the apostles. Yet they still shine with the evening red of the apostolic day, and breathe an enthusiasm of simple faith and fervent love and fidelity to the Lord, which proved its power in suffering and martyrdom. They move in the element of living tradition, and make reference oftener to the oral preaching of the apostles than to their writings; for these were not yet so generally circulated but they bear a testimony none the less valuable to the genuineness of the apostolic writings, by occasional citations or allusions, and by the coincidence of their reminiscences with the facts of the gospel history and the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament. The epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hernias, were in many churches read in public worship.(4) Some were even incorporated in important manuscripts of the Bible.(5) This shows that the sense of the church, as to the extent of the canon, had not yet become everywhere clear. Their authority, however, was always but sectional and subordinate to that of the Gospels and the apostolic Epistles. It was a sound instinct of the church, that the writings of the disciples of the apostles, excepting those of Mark and Luke, who were peculiarly associated with Peter and Paul, were kept out of the canon of the New Testament. For by the wise ordering of the Ruler of history, there is an impassable gulf between the inspiration of the apostles and the illumination of the succeeding age, between the standard authority of holy Scripture and the derived validity of the teaching of the church. "The Bible"—to adopt an illustration of a distinguished writer(6) —"is not like a city of modern Europe, which subsides through suburban gardens and groves and mansions into the open country around, but like an Eastern city in the desert, from which the traveler passes by a single step into a barren waste." The very poverty of these post-apostolic writings renders homage to the inexhaustible richness of the apostolic books which, like the person of Christ, are divine as well as human in their origin, character, and effect.(7)

§ 162. Clement of Rome.

(I.) The Epistle of Clemens Rom. to the Corinthians. Only the first is genuine, the second so-called Ep. of Cl. is a homily of later date. Best editions by Philotheos Bryennios (Tou' ejn aJgivoi" patro;" hJmw'n Klhvmento" ejpiskovpou JRwvmh" aij duvo pro;" Karinqivou" evpistolaiv etc. JEn Kwvnstantinopovlei, 1875. With prolegomena, commentary and facsimiles at the end, 188 pp. text, and rxq v or169 prolegomena); Hilgenfeld (second ed. Leipz. 1876, with prolegomena, textual notes and conjectures); Von Gebhardt & Harnack (sec. ed. 1876, with proleg., notes, and Latin version); Funk (1878, with Latin version and notes); and Lightfoot (with notes, Lond. 1869, and Appendix containing the newly-discovered portions, and an English Version, 1877).

All the older editions from the Alexandrian MS. first published by Junius, 1633, are partly superseded by the discovery of the new and complete MS. in Constantinople, which marks an epoch in this chapter of church history.

(II.) R. A. Lipsius: De Clementis Rom. Epistola ad Corinth. priore disquisitio. Lips. 1856 (188 pages). Comp. his review of recent editions in the "Jenaer Literaturzeitung." Jan. 13, 1877.

B. H. Cowper: What the First Bishop of Rome taught. The Ep. of Clement of R. to the Cor., with an Introduction and Notes. London, 1867.

Jos. Mullooly: St. Clement Pope and Martyr, and his Basilica in Rome. Rome, second ed. 1873. The same in Italian. Discusses the supposed house and basilica of Clement, but not his works.

Jacobi: Die beiden Briefe des Clemens v. Rom., in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 707 sqq.

Funk: Ein theologischer Fund, in the Tüb. "Theol. Quartalschrift," 1876, p. 286 sqq.

Donaldson: The New MS. of Clement of Rome. In the "Theolog. Review." 1877, p. 35 sqq.

Wieseler: Der Brief des röm. Clemens an die Kor., in the "Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol." 1877. No. III.

Renan: Les évangiles. Paris 1877. Ch. xv. 311–338.

C. J. H. Ropes: The New MS. of Clement of Rome, in the "Presb. Quarterly and Princeton Review." N. York 1877, P. 325–343. Contains a scholarly examination of the new readings, and a comparison of the concluding prayer with the ancient liturgies.

The relevant sections in Hilgenfeld (Apost. Väter, 85–92), Donaldson (Ap. Fath., 113–190), Sprinzl (Theol. d. Apost. Väter, 21 sqq., 57 sqq.), Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. 554 sqq., and Uhlhorn in Herzog², sub Clemens Rom. III. 248–257.

Comp. full lists of editions, translations, and discussions on Clement, before and after 1875, in the Prolegomena of von Gebhardt & Harnack, XVIII.-XXIV.; Funk, XXXII.-XXXVI.; Lightfoot, p. 28 sqq., 223 sqq., and 393 sqq., and Richardson, Synopsis, I sqq.

The first rank among the works of the post-Apostolic age belongs to the "Teaching of the Apostles," discovered in 1883.(8) Next follow the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

I. Clement, a name of great celebrity in antiquity, was a disciple of Paul and Peter, to whom he refers as the chief examples for imitation. He may have been the same person who is mentioned by Paul as one of his faithful fellow-workers in Philippi (Phil. 4:3); or probably a Roman who was in some way connected with the distinguished Flavian family, and through it with the imperial household, where Christianity found an early lodgment.(9) His Epistle betrays a man of classical culture, executive wisdom, and thorough familiarity with the Septuagint Bible. The last seems to indicate that he was of Jewish parentage.(10) What we know with certainty is only this, that he stood at the head of the Roman congregation at the close of the first century. Yet tradition is divided against itself as to the time of his administration; now making him the first successor of Peter, now, with more probability, the third. According to Eusebius he was bishop from the twelfth year of Domitian to the third of Trajan (A. D. 92 to 101). Considering that the official distinction between bishops and presbyters was not yet clearly defined in his time, he may have been co-presbyter with Linus and Anacletus, who are represented by some as his predecessors, by others as his successors.(11)

Later legends have decked out his life in romance, both in the interest of the Catholic church and in that of heresy. They picture him as a noble and highly educated Roman who, dissatisfied with the, wisdom and art of heathenism, journeyed to Palestine, became acquainted there with the apostle Peter, and was converted by him; accompanied him on his missionary tours; composed many books in his name; was appointed by him his successor as bishop of Rome, with a sort of supervision over the whole church; and at last, being banished under Trajan to the Taurian Chersonesus, died the glorious death of a martyr in the waves of the sea. But the oldest witnesses, down to Eusebius and Jerome, know nothing of his martyrdom. The Acta Martyrii Clementis (by Simon Metaphrastes) make their appearance first in the ninth century. They are purely fictitious, and ascribe incredible miracles to their hero.

It is very remarkable that a person of such vast influence in truth and fiction, whose words were law, who preached the duty of obedience and submission to an independent and distracted church, whose vision reached even to unknown lands beyond the Western sea, should inaugurate, at the threshold of the second century, that long line of pontiffs who have outlasted every dynasty in Europe, and now claim an infallible authority over the consciences of two hundred millions of Christians.(12)

From this Clement we have a Greek epistle to the Corinthians. It is often cited by the church fathers, then disappeared, but was found again, together with the fragments of the second epistle, in the Alexandrian codex of the Bible (now in the British Museum), and published by Patricius Junius (Patrick Young) at Oxford in 1633.(13) A second, less ancient, but more perfect manuscript from the eleventh century, containing the missing chapters of the first (with the oldest written prayer) and the whole of the second Epistle (together with other valuable documents), was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios,(14) in the convent library of the patriarch of Jerusalem in Constantinople, and published in 1875.(15) Soon afterwards a Syriac translation was found in the library of Jules Mohl, of Paris (d. 1876).(16) We have thus three independent texts (A, C, S), derived, it would seem, from a common parent of the second century. The newly discovered portions shed new light on the history of papal authority and liturgical worship, as we have pointed out in previous chapters.(17)

This first (and in fact the only) Epistle to the Corinthians was sent by the Church of God in Rome, at its own impulse, and unasked, to the Church of God in Corinth, through three aged and faithful Christians: Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Biton, and Fortunatus.(18) It does not bear the name of Clement, and is written in the name of the Roman congregation, but was universally regarded as his production.(19) It stood in the highest esteem in ancient times, and continued in public use in the Corinthian church and in several other churches down to the beginning of the fourth century.(20) This accounts for its incorporation in the Alexandrian Bible Codex, but it is properly put after the Apocalypse and separated from the apostolic epistles.

And this indicates its value. It is not apostolical, not inspired—far from it—but the oldest and best among the sub-apostolic writings both in form and contents. It was occasioned by party differences and quarrels in the church of Corinth, where the sectarian spirit, so earnestly rebuked by Paul in his first Epistle, had broken out afresh and succeeded in deposing the regular officers (the presbyter-bishops). The writer exhorts the readers to harmony and love, humility, and holiness, after the pattern of Christ and his apostles, especially Peter and Paul, who had but recently sealed their testimony with their blood. He speaks in the highest terms of Paul who, "after instructing the whole [Roman] world in righteousness, and after having reached the end of the West, and borne witness before the rulers, departed into the holy place, leaving the greatest example of patient endurance."(21) He evinces the calm dignity and executive wisdom of the Roman church in her original simplicity, without hierarchical arrogance; and it is remarkable how soon that church recovered after the terrible ordeal of the Neronian persecution, which must have been almost an annihilation. He appeals to the word of God as the final authority, but quotes as freely from the Apocrypha as from the canonical Scriptures (the Septuagint). He abounds in free reminiscences of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.(22) He refers to Paul’s (First) Epistle to the Corinthians, and shows great familiarity with his letters, with James, First Peter, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which he borrows several expressions. Hence he is mentioned—with Paul, Barnabas, and Luke—as one of the supposed authors of that anonymous epistle. Origen conjectured that Clement or Luke composed the Hebrews under the inspiration or dictation of Paul.

Clement bears clear testimony to the doctrines of the Trinity ("God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect"), of the Divine dignity and glory of Christ, salvation only by his blood, the necessity of repentance and living faith, justification by grace, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, the unity of the church, and the Christian graces of humility, charity, forbearance, patience, and perseverance. In striking contrast with the bloody cruelties practiced by Domitian, he exhorts to prayer for the civil rulers, that God "may give them health, peace, concord, and stability for the administration of the government be has given them."(23) We have here the echo of Paul’s exhortation to the Romans (Rom. 13) under the tyrant Nero. Altogether the Epistle of Clement is worthy of a disciple of the apostles, although falling far short of their writings in original simplicity, terseness, and force.

In regard to its theology, this epistle belongs plainly to the school of Paul and strongly resembles the Epistle to the Hebrews, while at the same time it betrays the influence of Peter also; both these apostles having, in fact, personally labored in the church of Rome, in whose name the letter is written, and having left the stamp of their mind upon it. There is no trace in it of an antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism.(24) Clement is the only one of the apostolic fathers, except perhaps Polycarp, who shows some conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. "All (the saints of the Old Testament)," says he,(25) "became great and glorious, not through themselves, nor by their works, nor by their righteousness, but by the will of God. Thus we also, who are called by the will of God in Christ Jesus, are righteous not of ourselves, neither through our wisdom, nor through our understanding, nor through our piety, nor through our works, which we have wrought in purity of heart, but by faith, by which the almighty God justified all these from the beginning; to whom be glory to all eternity." And then Clement, precisely like Paul in Romans 6, derives sanctification from justification, and continues: "What, then, should we do, beloved brethren? Should we be slothful in good works and neglect love? By no means! But with zeal and courage we will hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all things himself rejoices in his works." Among the good works he especially extols love, and describes it in a strain which reminds one of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 13: "He who has love in Christ obeys the commands of Christ. Who can declare the bond of the love of God, and tell the greatness of its beauty? The height to which it leads is unspeakable. Love unites us with God; covers a multitude of sins; beareth all things, endureth all things. There is nothing mean in love, nothing haughty. It knows no division; it is not refractory; it does everything in harmony. In love have all the elect of God become perfect. Without love nothing is pleasing to God. In love has the Lord received us; for the love which he cherished towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us according to the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our soul."(26) Hence all his zeal for the unity of the church. "Wherefore are dispute, anger, discord, division, and war among you? Or have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit, who is poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ? Wherefore do we tear and sunder the members of Christ, and bring the body into tumult against itself, and go so far in delusion, that we forget that we are members one of another?"(27)

Very beautifully also he draws from the harmony of the universe an incitement to concord, and incidentally expresses here the remarkable sentiment, perhaps suggested by the old legends of the Atlantis, the orbis alter, the ultima Thule, etc., that there are other worlds beyond the impenetrable ocean, which are ruled by the same laws of the Lord.(28)

But notwithstanding its prevailing Pauline character, this epistle lowers somewhat the free evangelical tone of the Gentile apostle’s theology, softens its anti-Judaistic sternness, and blends it with the Jewish-Christian counterpart of St. James, showing that the conflict between the Pauline and Petrine views was substantially settled at the end of the first century in the Roman church, and also in that of Corinth.

Clement knows nothing of an episcopate above the presbyterate; and his epistle itself is written, not in his own name, but in that of the church at Rome. But he represents the Levitical priesthood as a type of the Christian teaching office, and insists with the greatest decision on outward unity, fixed order, and obedience to church rulers. He speaks in a tone of authority to a sister church of apostolic foundation, and thus reveals the easy and as yet innocent beginning of the papacy.(29) A hundred years after his death his successors ventured, in their own name, not only to exhort, but to excommunicate whole churches for trifling differences.

The interval between Clement and Paul, and the tran-sition from the apostolic to the apocryphal, from faith to superstition, appears in the indiscriminate use of the Jewish Apocrypha, and in the difference between Paul’s treatment of scepticism in regard to the resurrection, and his disciple’s treatment of the same subject.(30) Clement points not only to the types in nature, the changes of the seasons and of day and night, but also in full earnest to the heathen myth of the miraculous bird, the phoenix in Arabia, which regenerates itself every five hundred years. When the phoenix—so runs the fable—approaches death, it makes itself a nest of frankincense, myrrh, and other spices; from its decaying flesh a winged worm arises, which, when it becomes strong, carries the reproductive nest from Arabia to Heliopolis in Egypt, and there flying down by day, in the sight of all, it lays it, with the bones of its predecessors, upon the altar of the sun. And this takes place, according to the reckoning of the priests, every five hundred years. After Clement other fathers also used the phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection.(31)

As to the time of its composition, this epistle falls certainly after the death of Peter and Paul, for it celebrates their martyrdom; and probably after the death of John (about 98); for one would suppose, that if he had been living, Clement would have alluded to him, in deference to superior authority, and that the Corinthian Christians would have applied to an apostle for counsel, rather than to a disciple of the apostles in distant Rome. The persecution alluded to in the beginning of the epistle refers to the Domitian as well as the Neronian; for he speaks of "sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us."(32) He prudently abstains from naming the imperial persecutors, and intercedes at the close for the civil rulers. Moreover, he calls the church at Corinth at that time "firmly established and ancient."(33) With this date the report of Eusebius agrees, that Clement did not take the bishop’s chair in Rome till 92 or 93.(34)

§ 163. The Pseudo-Clementine Works.

The most complete collection of the genuine and spurious works of Clement in Migne’s Patrol. Graeca, Tom. I. and II.

The name of Clement has been forged upon several later writings, both orthodox and heretical, to give them the more currency by the weight of his name and position. These pseudo-Clementine works supplanted in the church of Rome the one genuine work of Clement, which passed into oblivion with the knowledge of the Greek language. They are as follows:

A Second Epistle to the Corinthians, falsely so called, formerly known only in part (12 chapters), since 1875 in full (20 chapters).(35) It is greatly inferior to the First Epistle in contents and style, and of a later date, between 120 and 140, probably written in Corinth; hence its connection with it in MSS.(36) It is no epistle at all, but a homily addressed to "brothers and sisters." It is the oldest known specimen of a post-apostolic sermon, and herein alone lies its importance and value.(37) It is an earnest, though somewhat feeble exhortation to active Christianity and to fidelity in persecution, meantime contending with the Gnostic denial of the resurrection. It is orthodox in sentiment, calls Christ "God and the Judge of the living and the dead," and speaks of the great moral revolution wrought by him in these words (2 Cor. 1): "We were deficient in understanding, worshipping stocks and stones, gold and silver and brass, the works of men; and our whole life was nothing else but death.... Through Jesus Christ we have received sight, putting off by his will the cloud wherein we were wrapped. He mercifully saved us.... He called us when we were not, and willed that out of nothing we should attain a real existence."
Two Encyclical Letters on Virginity. They were first discovered by J. J. Wetstein in the library of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam, in a Syriac Version written a.d. 1470, and published as an appendix to his famous Greek Testament, 1752.(38) They commend the unmarried life, and contain exhortations and rules to ascetics of both sexes. They show the early development of an asceticism which is foreign to the apostolic teaching and practice. While some Roman Catholic divines still defend the Clementine origin,(39) others with stronger arguments assign it to the middle or close of the second century.(40)
The Apostolical Constitutions and Canons.(41) The so-called Liturgia S. Clementis is a part of the eighth book of the Constitutions.
The Pseudo-Clementina, or twenty Ebionitic homilies and their Catholic reproduction, the Recognitions.(42)
Five Decretal Letters, which pseudo-Isidore has placed at the head of his collection. Two of them are addressed to James, the Lord’s Brother, are older than the pseudo-Isidore, and date from the second or third century; the three others were fabricated by him. They form the basis for the most gigantic and audacious literary forgery of the middle ages—the Isidorian Decretals—which subserved the purposes of the papal hierarchy.(43) The first Epistle to James gives an account of the appointment of Clement by Peter as his successor in the see of Rome, with directions concerning the functions of the church-officers and the general administration of the church. The second Epistle to James refers to the administration of the eucharist, church furniture, and other ritualistic matters. They are attached to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. But it is remarkable that in the Homilies James of Jerusalem appears as the superior of Peter of Rome, who must give an account of his doings, and entrust to him his sermons for safe keeping.

§ 164. Ignatius of Antioch.

Comp. §§ 17 and 45 (this vol.).

Sources

I. The Epistles.

W. Cureton: The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius to S. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. With transl. and notes. Lond. and Berl., 1845. Also in Lightfoot II. 659–676.

C. C. J. Bunsen: Die 3 ächten u. die 4 unächten Briefe des Ignatius von Ant. Hergestellter u. verqleichender Text mit Anmerkk. Hamb., 1847.

W. Cureton: Corpus Ignatianum: a complete collection of the Ignatian Epistles, genuine, interpolated, and spurious; together with numerous extracts from them as quoted by Eccles. writers down to the tenth century; in Syriac, Greek, and Latin, an Engl. transl. of the Syriac text, copious notes, and introd. Lond. and Berl., 1849.

J. H. Petermann: S. Ignatii quae feruntur Epistolae, una cum ejusdem martyrio, collatis edd. Graecis, versionibusque Syriaca, Armeniaca, Latinis. Lips., 1849.

Theod. Zahn: Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae, Martyria, Fragmenta. Lips. 1876 (the second part of Patrum Apostolorum Opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn). This is the best critical ed. of the shorter Greek text. Funk admits its superiority ("non hesitans dico, textum quem exhibuit Zahn, prioribus longe praestare." Prol., p. lxxv.).

Fr. Xav. Funk: Opera Patrum Apost., vol. I. Tub., 1878.

J. B. Lightfoot: The Apost. Fathers. P. II. vol. I. and II. Lond. l885. English translations of all the Epistles of Ignatius (Syriac, and Greek in both recensions) by Roberts, Donaldson, and Crombie, in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library, (1867), and by Lightfoot (1885).

Earlier Engl. translations by Whiston (1711) and Clementson (1827).

German translations by M. I. Wocher (1829) and Jos. Nirschl (Die Briefe des heil. Ign. und sein Martyrium, 1870).

The Martyria.

Acta Martyrii S. Ignatii (Martuvrrion tou' aJgivou iJeromavrturo" jIgnativou tou' qeofovrou), ed. by Ussher (from two Latin copies, 1647), Cotelier (Greek, 1672), Ruinart (1689), Grabe, Ittig, Smith, Gallandi, Jacobson, Hefele, Dressel, Cureton, Mösinger, Petermann, Zahn (pp. 301 sqq.), (Funk (I. 254–265; II. 218–275), and Lightfoot (II. 473–536). A Syriac version was edited by Cureton (Corpus Ignat. 222–225, 252–255), and more fully by Mösinger (Supplementum Corporis Ignat., 1872). An Armenian Martyr. was edited by Petermann, 1849. The Martyrium Colbertinum (from the codex Colbertinus in Paris) has seven chapters. There are several later and discordant recensions, with many interpolations. The Acts of Ignatius profess to be written by two of his deacons and travelling companions; but they were unknown to Eusebius, they contradict the Epistles, they abound in unhistorical statements, and the various versions conflict with each other. Hence recent Protestant critics reject them; and even the latest Roman Catholic editor admits that they must have been written after the second century. Probably not before the fifth. Comp. the investigation of Zahn, Ign. v. Ant., p. 1–74; Funk, Proleg. p. lxxix. sqq., and Lightfoot, II. 363–536.

The patristic statements concerning Ignatius are collected by Cureton, Bunsen, Petermann, Zahn, p. 326–381, and Lightfoot, I. 127–221.

Critical Discussions.

Joh. Dallaeus (Daillé): De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii nominibus circumferuntur, libri duo. Genev., 1666. Against the genuineness.

J. Pearson: Vindiciae Ignatianae.* Cambr., 1672. Also in Cleric. ed. of the Patres Apost. II. 250–440, and in Migne’s Patrol. Gr., Tom. V. Republished with annotations by E. Churton, in the Anglo-Cath. Library, Oxf., 1852, 2 vols.

R. Rothe: Anfänge der christl. Kirche.* Wittenb., 1837. I., p. 715 sqq. For the shorter Greek recension.

Baron von Bunsen (at that time Prussian ambassador in England): Ignatius von Ant. u. seine Zeit. 7 Sendschreiben an Dr. Neander. Hamb., 1847. For the Syriac version.

Baur: Die Ignatianischen Briefe u. ihr neuster Kritiker. Tüb., 1848. Against Bunsen and against the genuineness of all recensions.

Denzinger. (R.C.): Ueber die Aechtheit des bisherigen Textes der Ignatian. Briefe. Würzb., 1849.

G. Uhlhorn: Das Verhältniss der syrischen Recension der Ignatian. Br. zu der kürzeren griechischen.* Leipz., 1851 (in the "Zeitschr. für Hist. Theol."); and his article "Ignatius" in Herzog’s Theol. Encykl., vol. vi. (1856), p. 623 sqq., and in the second ed., vol. vi. 688–694. For the shorter Greek recension.

Thiersch: Kirche im Apost. Zeitalter. Frankf. u. Erl., 1852, p. 320 sqq.

Lipsius: Ueber die Aechtheit der syr. Recens. der Ignat. Br. Leipz., 1856 (in Niedner’s "Zeitschr. für Hist. Theol."). For the Syriac version. But he afterwards changed his view in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol." 1874, p. 211.

Vaucher: Recherches critiques sur les lettres d’gnace d’Antioche. Genève, 1856.

Merx: Meletemata Ignatiana. Hal. 1861.

Theod. Zahn: Ignatius von Antiochien.* Gotha, 1873. (631 pages.) For the short Greek recension. The best vindication. Comp. the Proleg. to his ed., 1876.

Renan: Les Évangiles (1877), ch. xxii. 485–498, and the introduction, p. x sqq. Comp. also his notice of Zahn in the "Journal des Savants" for 1874. Against the genuineness of all Ep. except Romans. See in reply Zahn, Proleg. p. x.

F. X. Funk: Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe. Tübingen 1883.

Lightfoot: St. Paul’s Ep. to the Philippians (Lond. 1873), Excurs. on the Chr. Ministry, p. 208–911, and 232–236. "The short Greek of the Ignatian letters is probably corrupt or spurious: but from internal evidence this recension can hardly have been made later than the middle of the second century." (p. 210). On p. 232, note, he expressed his preference with Lipsius for the short Syriac text. But since then he has changed his mind in favor of the short Greek recension. See his S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, London, 1885, Vol. I., 315–414. He repeats and reinforces Zahn’s arguments.

Canon R. Travers Smith: St. Ignatius in Smith and Wace III. (1882), 209–223. For the short Greek recensiona.

On the chronology

Jos. Nirschl: Das Todesjahr des Ignatius v. A. und die drei oriental. Feldzüge des Kaisers Trajan (1869); Adolf Harnack: Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der Antiochenischen Bischöfe bis Tyrannus (Leipzig, 1878); and Wiessler: Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren (Gütersloh, 1878), p. 125 sqq.

On the theology of Ignatius, comp. the relevant sections in Möhler, Hilgenfeld, Zahn (422–494), Nirschl, and Sprinzl.

I. Life of Ignatius.

Ignatius, surnamed Theophorus,(44) stood at the head of the Church of Antioch at the close of the first century and the beginning of the second, and was thus contemporaneous with Clement of Rome and Simeon of Jerusalem. The church of Antioch was the mother-church of Gentile Christianity; and the city was the second city of the Roman empire. Great numbers of Christians and a host of heretical tendencies were collected there, and pushed the development of doctrine and organization with great rapidity.

As in the case of Rome, tradition differs concerning the first episcopal succession of Antioch, making Ignatius either the second or the first bishop of this church after Peter, and calling him now a disciple of Peter, now of Paul, now of John. The Apostolic Constitutions intimate that Evodius and Ignatius presided contemporaneously over that church, the first being ordained by Peter, the second by Paul.(45) Baronius and others suppose the one to have been the bishop of the Jewish, the other of the Gentile converts. Thiersch endeavors to reconcile the conflicting statements by the hypothesis, that Peter appointed Evodius presbyter, Paul Ignatius, and John subsequently ordained Ignatius bishop. But Ignatius himself and Eusebius say nothing of his apostolic discipleship; while the testimony of Jerome and the Martyrium Colbertinum that he and Polycarp were fellow-disciples of St. John, is contradicted by the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, according to which he did not know Polycarp till he came to Smyrna on his way to Rome.(46) According to later story, Ignatius was the first patron of sacred music, and introduced the antiphony in Antioch.

But his peculiar glory, in the eyes of the ancient church, was his martyrdom. The minute account of it, in the various versions of the Martyrium S. Ignatii, contains many embellishments of pious fraud and fancy; but the fact itself is confirmed by general tradition. Ignatius himself says, in his Epistle to the Romans, according to the Syriac version: "From Syria to Rome I fight with wild beasts, on water and on land, by day and by night, chained to ten leopards [soldiers],(47) made worse by signs of kindness. Yet their wickednesses do me good as a disciple; but not on this account am I justified. Would that I might be glad of the beasts made ready for me. And I pray that they may be found ready for me. Nay, I will fawn upon them, that they may devour me quickly, and not, as they have done with some, refuse to touch me from fear. Yea, and if they will not voluntarily do it, I will bring them to it by force."

The Acts of his martyrdom relate more minutely, that Ignatius was brought before the Emperor Trajan at Antioch in the ninth year of his reign (107–108), was condemned to death as a Christian, was transported in chains to Rome, was there thrown to lions in the Coliseum for the amusement of the people, and that his remains were carried back to Antioch as an invaluable treasure.(48) The transportation may be accounted for as designed to cool the zeal of the bishop, to terrify other Christians on the way, and to prevent an outbreak of fanaticism in the church of Antioch.(49) But the chronological part of the statement makes difficulty. So far as we know, from coins and other ancient documents, Trajan did not come to Antioch on his Parthian expedition till the year 114 or 115. We must therefore either place the martyrdom later,(50) or suppose, what is much more probable, that Ignatius did not appear before the emperor himself at all, but before his governor.(51) Eusebius, Chrysostom, and other ancient witnesses say nothing of an imperial judgment, and the Epistle to the Romans rather implies that Ignatius was not condemned by the emperor at all; for otherwise it would have been useless for him to forbid them to intercede in his behalf. An appeal was possible from a lower tribunal, but not from the emperor’s.

His Letters.

On his journey to Rome, Bishop Ignatius, as a prisoner of Jesus Christ, wrote seven epistles to various churches, mostly in Asia Minor. Eusebius and Jerome put them in the following order: (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians; (3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6) to the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. The first four were composed in Smyrna; the other three later in Troas. These seven epistles, in connection with a number of other decidedly spurious epistles of Ignatius, have come down to us in two Greek versions, a longer and a shorter. The shorter is unquestionably to be preferred to the longer, which abounds with later interpolations. Besides these, to increase the confusion of controversy, a Syriac translation has been made known in 1845, which contains only three of the former epistles—those to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans—and these in a much shorter form. This version is regarded by some as an exact transfer of the original; by others, with greater probability, as a mere extract from it for practical and ascetic purposes.

The question therefore lies between the shorter Greek copy and the Syriac version. The preponderance of testimony is for the former, in which the letters are no loose patch-work, but were produced each under its own impulse, were known to Eusebius (probably even to Polycarp),(52) and agree also with the Armenian version of the fifth century, as compared by Petermann. The three Syriac epistles, however, though they lack some of the strongest passages on episcopacy and on the divinity of Christ, contain the outlines of the same life-picture, and especially the same fervid enthusiasm for martyrdom, as the seven Greek epistles.

His Character and Position in history.

Ignatius stands out in history as the ideal of a catholic martyr, and as the earliest advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil points. As a writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness and force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling and sententious style; but in apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity and governmental wisdom of the Roman character. Ignatius glows with the fire and impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond the bounds of sobriety. He was a very uncommon man, and made a powerful impression upon his age. He is the incarnation, as it were, of the three closely connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism. Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian charity and churchly exclusiveness are typically represented in Ignatius.

As he appears personally in his epistles, his most beautiful and venerable trait is his glowing love for Christ as God incarnate, and his enthusiasm for martyrdom. If great patriots thought it sweet to die for their country, he thought it sweeter and more honorable to die for Christ, and by his blood to fertilize the soil for the growth of His Church. "I would rather die for Christ," says he, "than rule the whole earth." "It is glorious to go down in the world, in order to go up into God." He beseeches the Romans: "Leave me to the beasts, that I may by them be made partaker of God. I am a grain of the wheat of God, and I would be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread of God. Rather fawn upon the beasts, that they may be to me a grave, and leave nothing of my body, that, when I sleep, I may not be burdensome to any one. Then will I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world can no longer even see my body. Pray the Lord for me, that through these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God."(53) And further on: "Fire, and cross, and exposure to beasts, scattering of the bones, hewing of the limbs, crushing of the whole body, wicked torments of the devil, may come upon me, if they only make me partaker of Jesus Christ.... My love is crucified, and there is no fire in me, which loves earthly stuff.... I rejoice not in the food of perishableness, nor in the pleasures of this life. The bread of God would I have, which is the flesh of Christ; and for drink I wish his blood, which is imperishable love."(54)

From these and similar passages, however, we perceive also that his martyr-spirit exceeds the limits of the genuine apostolic soberness and resignation, which is equally willing to depart or to remain according to the Lord’s good pleasure.(55) It degenerates into boisterous impatience and morbid fanaticism. It resembles the lurid torch rather than the clear calm light. There mingles also in all his extravagant professions of humility and entire unworthiness a refined spiritual pride and self-commendation. And, finally, there is something offensive in the tone of his epistle to Polycarp, in which he addresses that venerable bishop and apostolic disciple, who at that time must have already entered upon the years of ripe manhood, not as a colleague and brother, but rather as a pupil, with exhortations and warnings, such as: "Strive after more knowledge than thou hast." "Be wise as the serpents." "Be more zealous than thou art." "Flee the arts of the devil."(56) This last injunction goes even beyond that of Paul to Timothy: "Flee youthful lusts,"(57) and can hardly be justified by it. Thus, not only in force and depth of teaching, but also in life and suffering, there is a significant difference between an apostolic and a post-apostolic martyr.

The doctrinal and churchly views of the Ignatian epistles are framed on a peculiar combination and somewhat materialistic apprehension of John’s doctrine of the incarnation, and Paul’s idea of the church as the body of Jesus Christ. In the "catholic church"—an expression introduced by him—that is, the episcopal orthodox organization of his day, the author sees, as it were, the continuation of the mystery of the incarnation, on the reality of which he laid great emphasis against the Docetists; and in every bishop, a visible representative of Christ, and a personal centre of ecclesiastical unity, which he presses home upon his readers with the greatest solicitude and almost passionate zeal. He thus applies those ideas of the apostles directly to the outward organization, and makes them subservient to the principle and institution of the growing hierarchy. Here lies the chief importance of these epistles; and the cause of their high repute with catholics and prelatists,(58) and their unpopularity with anti-episcopalians, and modern critics of the more radical school.(59)

It is remarkable that the idea of the episcopal hierarchy which we have developed in another chapter, should be first clearly and boldly brought out, not by the contemporary Roman bishop Clement,(60) but by a bishop of the Eastern church; though it was transplanted by him to the soil of Rome, and there sealed with his martyr blood. Equally noticeable is the circumstance, that these oldest documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud, that it is today almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper- and pseudo-Ignatius of tradition.

§ 165. The Ignatian Controversy.

Of all the writings of the apostolic fathers none have been so much discussed, especially in modern times, as the Ignatian Epistles. This arises partly from the importance of their contents to the episcopal question, partly from the existence of so many different versions. The latter fact seems to argue as strongly for the hypothesis of a genuine basis for all, as against the supposition of the full integrity of any one of the extant texts. Renan describes the Ignatian problem as the most difficult in early Christian literature, next to that of the Gospel of John (Les Évang. p. x).

The Ignatian controversy has passed through three periods, the first from the publication of the spurious Ignatius to the publication of the shorter Greek recension (A. D. 1495 to 1644); the second from the discovery and publication of the shorter Greek recension to the discovery and publication of the Syrian version (A. D. 1644 to 1845), which resulted in the rejection of the larger Greek recension; the third from the discovery of the Syrian extract to the present time (1845–1883), which is favorable to the shorter Greek recension.

The Larger Greek Recension of Seven Epistles with eight additional ones. Four of them were published in Latin at Paris, 1495, as an appendix to another book; eleven more by Faber Stapulensis, also in Latin, at Paris, 1498; then all fifteen in Greek by Valentine Hartung (called Paceus or Irenaeus) at Dillingen, 1557; and twelve by Andreas Gesner at Zurich, 1560. The Catholics at first accepted them all as genuine works of Ignatius; and Hartung, Baronius, Bellarmin defended at least twelve; but Calvin and the Magdeburg Centuriators rejected them all, and later Catholics surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable. These are two Latin letters of Ignatius to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary with an answer of the Virgin; and five Greek letters of Ignatius to Maria Castabolita, with an answer, to the Tarsenses, to the Antiochians, to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, and to the Philippians. These letters swarm with offences against history and chronology. They were entirely unknown to Eusebius and Jerome. They are worthless forgeries, clothed with the name and authority of Ignatius. It is a humiliating fact that the spurious Ignatius and his letters to St. John and the Virgin Mary should in a wretched Latin version have so long transplanted and obscured the historical Ignatius down to the sixteenth century. No wonder that Calvin spoke of this fabrication with such contempt. But in like manner the Mary of history gave way to a Mary of fiction, the real Peter to a pseudo-Peter, and the real Clement to a pseudo-Clement. Here, if anywhere, we see the necessity and use of historical criticism for the defense of truth and honesty.
The Shorter Greek Recension of the seven Epistles known to Eusebius was discovered in a Latin version and edited by Archbishop Ussher at Oxford, 1644 (Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae), and in Greek by Isaac Vossius, from a Medicean Codex in 1646, again by Th. Ruinart from the Codex Colbertinus (together with the Martyrium) in 1689. We have also fragments of a Syrian version (in Cureton), and of an Armenian version apparently from the Syrian (printed in Constantinople in 1783, and compared by Petermann). Henceforth the longer Greek recension found very few defenders (the eccentric Whiston, 1711, and more recently Fr. C. Meier, 1836), and their arguments were conclusively refuted by R. Rothe in his Anfänge, 1837, and by K. Fr. L. Arndt in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1839). It is generally given up even by Roman Catholic scholars (as Petavius, Cotelier, Dupin, Hefele, Funk). But as regards the genuineness of the shorter Greek text there are three views among which scholars are divided.

Its genuineness and integrity are advocated by Pearson (Vindiciae Ignatianae, 1672, against the doubts of the acute Dallaeus), latterly by Gieseler, Möhler (R.C.), Rothe (1837), Huther (1841), Düsterdieck (1843), Dorner (1845), and (since the publication of the shorter Syriac version) by Jacobson, Hefele (R.C., 1847 and 1855), Denzinger (R.C., 1849), Petermann (1849), Wordsworth, Churton (1852), and most thoroughly by Ulhhorn, (1851 and ’56), and Zahn (1873, Ign. v. Ant. 495–541). The same view is adopted by Wieseler (1878), Funk (in Patr. Apost. 1878, Prol LX. sqq., and his monograph, 1883), Canon Travers Smith, (in Smith and Wace, 1882), and Lightfoot (1885).
The friends of the three Syriac epistles (see below under No. 3) let only so many of the seven epistles stand as agree with those. Also Lardner (1743), Mosheim (1755), Neander (1826), Thiersch (1852), Lechler (1857), Robertson and Donaldson (1867), are inclined to suppose at least interpolation.
The shorter recension, though older than the longer, is likewise spurious. The letters were forged in the later half of the second century for the purpose of promoting episcopacy and the worship of martyrs. This view is ably advocated by two very different classes of divines: first by Calvinists in the interest of Presbyterianism or anti-prelacy, Claudius Salmasius (1645), David Blondel (1646), Dallaeus (1666), Samuel Basnage, and by Dr. Killen of Belfast (1859 and 1883); next by the Tübingen school of critics in a purely historical interest, Dr. Baur (1835, then against Rothe, 1838, and against Bunsen, 1848 and 1853), Schwegler (1846), and more thoroughly by Hilgenfeld (1853). The Tübingen critics reject the whole Ignatian literature as unhistorical tendency writings, partly because the entire historical situation implied in it and the circuitous journey to Rome are in themselves improbable, partly because it advocates a form of church government and combats Gnostic heresies, which could not have existed in the age of Ignatius. This extreme scepticism is closely connected with the whole view of the Tübingen school in regard to the history of primitive Christianity, and offers no explanation of the stubborn fact that Ignatius was a historical character of a strongly marked individuality and wrote a number of letters widely known and appreciated in the early church. Renan admits the genuineness of the Ep. to the Romans, but rejects the six others as fabrications of a zealous partizan of orthodoxy and episcopacy about a.d. 170. He misses in them le génie, le caractère individuel, but speaks highly of the Ep. to the Romans, in which the enthusiasm of the martyr has found "son expressio la plus exaltée"(p. 489).
We grant that the integrity of these epistles, even in the shorter copy, is not beyond all reasonable doubt. As the manuscripts of them contain, at the same time, decidedly spurious epistles (even the Armenian translation has thirteen epistles), the suspicion arises, that the seven genuine also have not wholly escaped the hand of the forger. Yet there are, in any case, very strong arguments for their genuineness and substantial integrity; viz. (1) The testimony of the fathers, especially of Eusebius. Even Polycarp alludes to epistles of Ignatius. (2) The raciness and freshness of their contents, which a forger could not well imitate. (3) The small number of citations from the New Testament, indicating the period of the immediate disciples of the apostles. (4) Their way of combating the Judaists and Docetists (probably Judaizing Gnostics of the school of Cerinthus), showing us Gnosticism as yet in the first stage of its development. (5) Their dogmatical indefiniteness, particularly in regard to the Trinity and Christology, notwithstanding very strong expressions in favor of the divinity of Christ. (6) Their urgent recommendation of episcopacy as an institution still new and fresh, and as a centre of congregational unity in distinction from the diocesan episcopacy of Irenaeus and Tertullian. (7) Their entire silence respecting a Roman primacy, even in the epistle to the Romans, where we should most expect it. The Roman church is highly recommended indeed, but the Roman bishop is not even mentioned. In any case these epistles must have been written before the middle of the second century, and reflect the spirit of their age in its strong current towards a hierarchical organization and churchly orthodoxy on the basis of the glory of martyrdom.

The Syriac Version contains only three epistles (to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans), and even these in a much reduced form, less than half of the corresponding Greek Epistles. It has the subscription: "Here end the three epistles of the bishop and martyr Ignatius," on which, however, Bunsen lays too great stress; for, even if it comes from the translator himself, and not from a mere transcriber, it does not necessarily exclude the existence of other epistles (comp. Petermann, l.c. p. xxi.). It was discovered in 1839 and ’43 by the Rev. Henry Tattam in a monastery of the Libyan desert, together with 365 other Syriac manuscripts, now in the British Museum; published first by Cureton in 1845, and again in 1849, with the help of a third MS. discovered in 1847; and advocated as genuine by him, as also by Lee (1846), Bunsen (1847), Ritschl (1851 and 1857), Weiss (1852), and most fully by Lipsius (1856), also by E. de Pressené (1862), Böhringer (1873), and at first by Lightfoot.

Now, it is true, that all the considerations we have adduced in favor of the shorter Greek text, except the first, are equally good, and some of them even better, for the genuineness of the Syrian Ignatius, which has the additional advantage of lacking many of the most offensive passages (though not in the epistle to Polycarp).

But against the Syriac text is, in the first place, the external testimony of antiquity, especially that of Eusebius, who confessedly knew of and used seven epistles, whereas the oldest of the three manuscripts of this version, according to Cureton, belongs at the earliest to the sixth century, a period, when the longer copy also had become circulated through all the East, and that too in a Syriac translation, as the fragments given by Cureton show. Secondly, the internal testimony of the fact, that the Syriac text, on close examination, by the want of a proper sequence of thoughts and sentences betrays the character of a fragmentary extract from the Greek; as Baur (1848), Hilgenfeld (1853), and especially Uhlhorn (185l), and Zahn (1873, p. 167–241), by an accurate comparison of the two, have proved in a manner hitherto unrefuted and irrefutable. The short Syriac Ignatius has vanished like a dream. Even Lipsius and Lightfoot have given up or modified their former view. The great work of Lightfoot on Ignatius and Polycarp (1885) which goes into all the details and gives all the documents, may be regarded as a full and final settlement of the Ignatian problem in favor of the shorter Greek recension.

The only genuine Ignatius, as the question now stands, is the Ignatius of the shorter seven Greek epistles.

§ 166. Polycarp of Smyrna.

Comp § 19 and the Lit. there quoted.

S. Polycarpi, Smyrnaeorum episcopi et hieromartyris, ad Philippenses Epistola, first published in Latin by Faber Stapulensis (Paris 1498), then with the Greek original by Petrus Halloisius (Halloix), Duaei, 1633; and Jac. Usserius (Ussher), Lond. 1647: also in all the editions of the Apost. Fath., especially those of Jacobson (who compared several manuscripts), Zahn (1876), Funk (1878), and Lightfoot)1885).

Martyrium S. Polycarpi (Epistola circularis ecclesix Smyrnensis), first completed ed. in Gr. & Lat. by Archbp. Ussher, Lond. 1647, then in all the ed. of the Patr. Apost., especially that of Jacobson (who here also made use of three new codices), of Zahn, and Funk.

L. Duchesne: Vita Sancti Polycarpi Smyrnaeorum episcopi auctore Pionio Primum graece edita. Paris 1881. The same also in the second vol. of Funk’s Patr. Apost. (1881) pp. LIV. -LVIII. 315–347. It is, according to Funk, from the fourth or fifth century, and shows not what Polycarp really was, but how he appeared to the Christians of a later age.

Zahn: Ign. v. Ant. p. 495–511; and Proleg. to his ed. of Ign. and Pol. (1876), p. XLII-LV.

Donaldson: Ap. Fath. 191–247.

Renan L’église chrétienne (1879), ch. ix. and x. p. 437–466.

Lightfoot: S. Ign. and S. Polycarp, (1885), vol. I. 417–704.

Polycarp, born about a.d. 69 or earlier, a disciple of the apostle John, a younger friend of Ignatius, and the teacher of Irenaeus (between 130 and 140), presided as presbyter-bishop over the church of Smyrna in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century; made a journey to Rome about the year 154, to adjust the Easter dispute; and died at the stake in the persecution under Antoninus Pius a.d. 155, at a great age, having served the Lord six and eighty years.(61) He was not so original and intellectually active as Clement or Ignatius, but a man of truly venerable character, and simple, patriarchal piety. His disciple Irenaeus of Lyons (who wrote under Eleutherus, 177–190), in a letter to his fellow-pupil Florinus, who had fallen into the error of Gnosticism) has given us most valuable reminiscences of this "blessed and apostolic presbyter," which show how faithfully he held fast the apostolic tradition, and how he deprecated all departure from it. He remembered vividly his mode of life and personal appearance, his discourses to the people, and his communications respecting the teaching and miracles of the Lord, as he had received them from the mouth of John and other eye-witnesses, in agreement with the Holy Scriptures.(62) In another place, Irenaeus says of Polycarp, that he had all the time taught what he had learned from the apostles, and what the church handed down; and relates, that he once called the Gnostic Marcion in Rome, "the first-born of Satan."(63) This is by no means incredible in a disciple of John, who, with all his mildness, forbids his people to salute the deniers of the true divinity and humanity of the Lord;(64) and it is confirmed by a passage in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,(65) where he says: "Whoever doth not confess, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist,(66) and whoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross, is of the devil; and he, who wrests the words of the Lord according to his own pleasure, and saith, there is no resurrection and judgment, is the first-born of Satan. Therefore would we forsake the empty babbling of this crowd and their false teachings, and turn to the word which hath been given us from the beginning, watching in prayer,(67) continuing in fasting, and most humbly praying God, that he lead us not into temptation,(68) as the Lord hath said: ’The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ "(69)

This epistle to the Philippians consists of fourteen short chapters, and has been published in full since 1633. It is the only, document that remains to us from this last witness of the Johannean age, who wrote several letters to neighboring congregations. It is mentioned first by his pupil Irenaeus;(70) it was still in public use in the churches of Asia Minor in the time of Jerome as he reports; and its contents correspond with the known life and character of Polycarp; its genuineness there is no just reason to doubt.(71) It has little merit as a literary production, but is simple and earnest, and breathes a noble Christian spirit, It was written after the death of Ignatius (whose epistles are mentioned, c. 13) in the name of Polycarp and his presbyters; commends the Philippians for the love they showed Ignatius in bonds and his companions, and for their adherence to the ancient faith; and proceeds with simple, earnest exhortation to love, harmony, contentment, patience, and perseverance, to prayer even for enemies and persecutors; also giving special directions for deacons, presbyters, youths, wives, widows, and virgins; with strokes against Gnostic Docetic errors. Of Christ it speaks in high terms, as the Lord, who sits at the right hand of God to whom everything in heaven and earth is subject; whom every living being serves; who is coming to judge the quick and the dead; whose blood God will require of all, who believe not on him.(72) Polycarp guards with sound feeling against being considered equal with the apostles: "I write these things, brethren, not in arrogance, but because ye have requested me. For neither I, nor any other like me, can attain the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who was among you, and in the presence of the then living accurately and firmly taught the word of truth, who also in his absence wrote you an epistle,(73) from which ye may edify yourselves in the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all,(74) hope following after, and love to God and to Christ, and to neighbors leading further.(75) For when any one is full of these virtues, he fulfills the command of righteousness; for he, who has love, is far from all sin."(76) This does not agree altogether with the system of St. Paul. But it should be remembered that Polycarp, in the very first chapter, represents faith and the whole salvation as the gift of free grace.(77)

The epistle is interwoven with many reminiscences of the Synoptical Gospels and the epistles of Paul, John and First Peter, which give to it considerable importance in the history of the canon.(78)

The Martyrium S. Polycarpi (22 chs.), in the form of a circular letter of the church of Smyrna to the church of Philomelium in Phrygia, and all "parishes of the Catholic church," appears, from ch. 18, to have been composed before the first annual celebration of his martyrdom. Eusebius has incorporated in his church history the greater part of this beautiful memorial, and Ussher first published it complete in the Greek original, 1647. It contains an edifying description of the trial and martyrdom of Polycarp, though embellished with some marvellous additions of legendary poesy. When, for example, the pile was kindled, the flames surrounded the body of Polycarp, like the full sail of a ship, without touching it; on the contrary it shone, unhurt, with a gorgeous color, like white baken bread, or like gold and silver in a crucible, and gave forth a lovely fragrance as of precious spices. Then one of the executioners pierced the body of the saint with a spear, and forthwith there flowed such a stream of blood that the fire was extinguished by it. The narrative mentions also a dove which flew up from the burning pile; but the reading is corrupt, and Eusebius, Rufinus, and Nicephorus make no reference to it.(79) The sign of a dove (which is frequently found on ancient monuments) was probably first marked on the margin, as a symbol of the pure soul of the martyr, or of the power of the Holy Spirit which pervaded him; but the insertion of the word dove in the text suggests an intended contrast to the eagle, which flew up from the ashes of the Roman emperors, and proclaimed their apotheosis, and may thus be connected with the rising worship of martyrs and saints.

Throughout its later chapters this narrative considerably exceeds the sober limits of the Acts of the Apostles in the description of the martyrdom of Stephen and the elder James, and serves to illustrate, in this respect also, the undeniable difference, notwithstanding all the affinity, between the apostolic and the old catholic literature.(80)

Notes.

I. Of all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the Epistle of Polycarp is the least original, but nearest in tone to the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, and fullest of reminiscences from the New Testament. We give the first four chapters as specimens.

I. "Polycarp and the presbyters with him to the congregation of god which sojourns at philippi. Mercy and peace be multiplied upon you, from god almighty, and from Jesus Christ our Saviour.

"I have greatly rejoiced with you in the joy you have had in our Lord Jesus Christ, in receiving those examples of true charity, and having accompanied, as it well became you, those who were bound with holy chains [Ignatius and his fellow-prisoners, Zosimus and Rufus; comp. ch. 9]; who are the diadems of the truly elect of God and our Lord; and that the strong root of your faith, spoken of in the earliest times, endureth until now, and bringeth forth fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, but whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the pains of Hades [Acts 2:24]; in whom though ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory [I Pet. 1:8]; into which joy many desire to enter; knowing that by grace ye are saved, not by works [Eph. 2:8, 9], but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
"Wherefore, girding up your loins, serve the Lord in fear [1 Pet. 1:13] and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory [1 Pet. 1:21], and a throne at His right hand [comp. Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2]; to whom all things in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil-speaking false-witness; not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling [1 Pet. 3:9]; or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus [comp. Acts 20:35] in His teaching: Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [Matt. 7:1, 2; Luke 6:36–38], and once more, Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God [Luke 6:20; Matt. 5:3, 10].
"These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything on myself, but because ye have invited me thereto. For neither I, nor any such as I, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive; and when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbor, is the mother of us all [Gal. 4:26]. For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, be has fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that has love is far from all sin.
"But the love of money is a beginning [ajrchv instead of root, jJrizh] of all kinds of evil, [1 Tim. 6:10]. Knowing, therefore, that as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out, [1 Tim. 6:7], let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness; and let us teach, first of all, ourselves to walk in the commandments of the Lord. Next teach your wives to walk in the faith given to them, and in love and purity tenderly loving their own husbands in all truth, and loving all equally in all chastity; and to train up their children in the knowledge and fear of God [comp. Eph. 6:11, 13, 14]. Let us teach the widows to be discreet as respects the faith of the Lord, praying continually for all, being far from all slandering, evil-speaking, false-witnessing, love of money, and every kind of evil; knowing that they are the altar of God, that He clearly perceives all things, and that nothing is hid from Him, neither reasonings, nor reflections, nor any one of the secret things of the heart."

From the Martyrium Polycarpi. When the Proconsul demanded that Polycarp should swear by the genius of Caesar and renounce Christ, he gave the memorable answer:

"Eighty and six years have I served Christ, nor has He ever done me any harm. How, then, could I blaspheme my King who saved me" (to;n basileva mou to;n swvsantav me)? Ch. 9.

Standing at the stake with his hands tied to the back, as the fagots were kindled, Polycarp lifted up his voice and uttered this sublime prayer as reported by disciples who heard it (ch. 14):

"Lord God Almighty, Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the grace of knowing Thee; God of angels and powers, and the whole creation, and of the whole race of the righteous who live in Thy presence; I bless Thee for deigning me worthy of this day and this hour that I may be among Thy martyrs and drink of the cup of my Lord Jesus Christ, unto the resurrection of eternal life of soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy Spirit. Receive me this day into Thy presence together with them, as a fair and acceptable sacrifice prepared for Thyself in fulfillment of Thy promise, O true and faithful God. Wherefore I praise Thee for all Thy mercies; I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal High-Priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom to Thyself and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and forever. Amen."

For a good popular description of Polycarp, including his letter and martyrdom, see The Pupils of St. John the Divine, by the Author of the Heir of Redcliffe, in Macmillan’s "Sunday Library." London 1863.

§ 167. Barnabas.

Editions.

First editions in Greek and Latin, except the first four chapters and part of the fifth, which were known only in the Latin version, by Archbishop Ussher (Oxf. 1643, destroyed by fire 1644), Luc. d’achery (Par. 1645), and Isaac Voss (Amstel. 1646).

First complete edition of the Greek original from the Codex Sinaiticus, to which it is appended, by Tischendorf in the facsimile ed. of that Codex, Petropoli, 1862, Tom. IV. 135–141, and in the Novum Testam. Sinait. 1863. The text dates from the fourth century. It was discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai, 1859, and is now in the library of St. Petersburg.

A new MS. of the Greek B. from the eleventh century (1056) was discovered in Constantinople by Bryennios, 1875, together with the Ep. of Clement, and has been utilized by the latest editors, especially by Hilgenfeld.

O. v. Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn: Patr. Ap. 1876. Gebhardt ed. the text from Cod. Sin. Harnack prepared the critical commentary. In the small ed. of 1877 the Const. Cod. is also compared.

Hefele-Funk: Patr. Ap. 1878, p. 2–59.

Ad. Hilgenfeld: Barnabae Epistula. Inteqram Graece iterum edidit, veterem interpretationem Latinam, commentarium criticum et adnotationes addidit A. H. Ed. altera et valde aucta. Lips. 1877. Dedicated to Bryennios. "Orientalis Ecclesicae splendido lumini." who being prevented by the Oriental troubles from editing the new MS., sent a collation to H. in Oct. 1876 (Prol. p. xiii). The best critical edition. Comp. Harnack’s review in Schürer’s "Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1877, f. 473–’77.

J. G. Müller (of Basle): Erklärung des Barnabasbriefes. Leipz. 1869. An Appendix to De Wette’s Corn. on the N. T.

English translations by Wake (1693), Roberts and Donaldson (in Ante-Nic. Lib. 1867), Hoole (1872), Rendall (1877), Sharpe (1880, from the Sinait. MS). German translations by Hefele (1840), Scholz (1865), Mayer (1869), Riggenbach (1873).

Critical Discussions.

C. Jos. Hefele (R.C.): Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas, auf’s Neue untersucht und erklärt. Tüb. 1840.

Joh. Kayser: ueber den sogen. Barnabasbrief. Paderborn, 1866.

Donaldson: Ap. Fathers (1874), p. 248–317.

K. Wieseler: On the Origin and Authorship of the Ep. of B., in the "Jahrbuecher für Deutsche Theol.," 1870, p. 603 sqq.

O. Braunsberger (R.C.): Der Apostel Barnabas. Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte Brief wissenschaftlich gewürdigt. Mainz, 1876.

W. Cunningham: The Ep. of St. Barnabas. London, 1876.

Samuel Sharpe: The Ep. of B. from the Sinaitic MS. London, 1880.

J. Weiss: Der Barnabasbrief kritisch untersucht. Berlin, 1888.

Milligan in Smith and Wace, I. 260–265; Harnack in Herzog² II. 101–105.

Other essays by Henke (1827), Rördam (1828), Ullmann (1828), Schenkel (1837), Franke (1840), Weizsäcker (1864), Heydecke (1874). On the relation of Barnabas to Justin Martyr see M. von Engelhardt: Das Christenthum Justins d. M. (1878), p. 375–394.

The doctrines of B. are fully treated by Hefele, Kayser, Donaldson, Hilgenfeld, Braunsberger, and Sprinzl.

Comp. the list of books from 1822–1875 in Harnack’s Prol. to the Leipz. ed. of Barn. Ep. p. XX sqq.; and in Richardson, Synopsis 16–19 (down to 1887).

The Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, so called, is anonymous, and omits all allusion to the name or residence of the readers. He addresses them not as their teacher, but as one among them.(81) He commences in a very general way: "All hail, ye sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us, in peace;" and concludes: "Farewell, ye children of love and peace, The Lord of glory and all grace be with your spirit. Amen."(82) For this reason, probably, Origen called it a "Catholic" Epistle, which must be understood, however, with limitation. Though not addressed to any particular congregation, it is intended for a particular class of Christians who were in danger of relapsing into Judaizing errors.

Contents. The epistle is chiefly doctrinal (ch. 1–17), and winds up with some practical exhortations to walk "in the way of light," and to avoid "the way of darkness" (ch. 18–21).(83) It has essentially the same object as the Epistle to the Hebrews, though far below it in depth, originality and unction. It shows that Christianity is the all-sufficient, divine institution for salvation, and an abrogation of Judaism, with all its laws and ceremonies. Old things have passed away; all things are made new. Christ has indeed given us a law; but it is a new law, without the yoke of constraint.(84) The tables of Moses are broken that the love of Christ may be sealed in our hearts.(85) It is therefore sin and folly to assert that the old covenant is still binding. Christians should strive after higher knowledge and understand the difference.

By Judaism, however, the author understands not the Mosaic and prophetic writings in their true spiritual sense, but the carnal misapprehension of them. The Old Testament is, with him, rather a veiled Christianity, which he puts into it by a mystical allegorical interpretation, as Philo, by the same method, smuggled into it the Platonic philosophy. In this allegorical conception he goes so far, that he actually seems to deny the literal historical sense. He asserts, for example, that God never willed the sacrifice and fasting, the Sabbath observance and temple-worship of the Jews, but a purely spiritual worship; and that the laws of food did not relate at all to the eating of clean and unclean animals, but only to intercourse with different classes of men, and to certain virtues and vices. His chiliasm likewise rests on an allegorical exegesis, and is no proof of a Judaizing tendency any more than in Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. He sees in the six days of creation a type of six historical millennia of work to be followed first by the seventh millennium of rest, and then by the eighth millennium of eternity, the latter being foreshadowed by the weekly Lord’s Day. The carnal Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is a diabolical perversion. The Christians, and not the Jews, are the true Israel of God and the righteous owners of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Barnabas proclaims thus an absolute separation of Christianity from Judaism. In this respect he goes further than any post-apostolic writer. He has been on that ground charged with unsound ultra-Paulinism bordering on antinomianism and heretical Gnosticism. But this is unjust. He breathes the spirit of Paul, and only lacks his depth, wisdom, and discrimination, Paul, in Galatians and Colossians, likewise takes an uncompromising attitude against Jewish circumcision, sabbatarianism, and ceremonialism, if made a ground of justification and a binding yoke of conscience; but nevertheless he vindicated the Mosaic law as a preparatory school for Christianity. Barnabas Ignores this, and looks only at the negative side. Yet he, too, acknowledges the new law of Christ. He has some profound glances and inklings of a Christian philosophy. He may be called an orthodox Gnostic. He stands midway between St. Paul and Justin Martyr, as Justin Martyr stands between Barnabas and the Alexandrian school. Clement and Origen, while averse to his chiliasm, liked his zeal for higher Christian knowledge and his allegorizing exegesis which obscures every proper historical understanding of the Old Testament.

The Epistle of Barnabas has considerable historical, doctrinal, and apologetic value. He confirms the principal facts and doctrines of the gospel. He testifies to the general observance of Sunday on "the eighth day," as the joyful commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, in strict distinction from the Jewish Sabbath on the seventh. He furnishes the first clear argument for the canonical authority of the Gospel of Matthew (without naming it) by quoting the passage: "Many are called, but few are chosen," with the solemn formula of Scripture quotation: "as it is written."(86) He introduces also (ch. 5) the words of Christ, that he did not come "to call just men, but sinners," which are recorded by Matthew 9:13. He furnishes parallels to a number of passages in the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, First Peter, and the Apocalypse. His direct quotations from the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Isaiah, are numerous; but he quotes also IV. Esdras and the Book of Enoch.(87)

Authorship. The Epistle was first cited by Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, as a work of the apostolic Barnabas, who plays so prominent a part in the early history of the church.(88) Origen seems to rank it almost with the inspired Scriptures. In the Sinaitic Bible, of the fourth century, it follows as the "Epistle of Barnabas," immediately after the Apocalypse (even on the same page 135, second column), as if it were a regular part of the New Testament. From this we may, infer that it was read in some churches as a secondary ecclesiastical book, like the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Pastor of Hermas. Eusebius and Jerome likewise ascribe it to Barnabas but number it among the "spurious," or "apocryphal" writings.(89) They seem to have doubted the authority, but not the authenticity of the epistle. The historical testimony therefore is strong and unanimous in favor of Barnabas, and is accepted by all the older editors and several of the later critics.(90)

But the internal evidence points with greater force to a post-apostolic writer.(91) The Epistle does not come up to the position and reputation of Barnabas, the senior companion of Paul, unless we assume that he was a man of inferior ability and gradually vanished before the rising star of his friend from Tarsus. It takes extreme ground against the Mosaic law, such as we can hardly expect from one who stood as a mediator between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Jewish Apostles, and who in the collision at Antioch sided with Peter and Mark against the bold champion of freedom; yet we should remember that this was only a temporary inconsistency, and that no doubt a reaction afterwards took place in his mind. The author in order to glorify the grace of the Saviour, speaks of the apostles of Christ before their conversion as over-sinful,(92) and indulges in artificial and absurd allegorical fancies.(93) He also wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem when Barnabas in all probability was no more among the living, though the date of his death is unknown, and the inference from Col. 4:10 and 1 Pet. 5:13 is uncertain.

These arguments are not conclusive, it is true, but it is quite certain that if Barnabas wrote this epistle, he cannot be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and vice versa. The difference between the two is too great for the unity of the authorship. The ancient church showed sound tact in excluding that book from the canon; while a genuine product of the apostolic Barnabas(94) had a claim to be admitted into it as well as the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews or the writings of Mark and Luke.

The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed; and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies.(95)

Time of composition. The work was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which is alluded to as an accomplished fact;(96) yet probably before the close of the first century, certainly before the reconstruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian (120).(97)

§ 168. Hermas.

Editions.

The older editions give only the imperfect Latin Version, first published by Faber Stapulensis (Par. 1513). Other Latin MSS. were discovered since. The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis) was first published by R. Anger, with a preface by G. Dindorf (Lips. 1856); then by Tischendorf, in Dressel’s Patres Apost., Lips 1857 (p. 572–637); again in the second ed. 1863, where Tischenderf, (sic) in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin (see the Proleg., Appendix and Preface to the second ed.). The Poimh;n o{rasi" is also printed in the fourth vol. of the large edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, at the close (pp. 142–148), Peters b. 1862. The texts from Mt. Athos and Mt. Sinai substantially agree. An Ethiopic translation appeared in Leipz. 1860, ed. with a Latin version by Ant. d’abbadie. Comp. Dillmann in the "Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft "for 1861; Schodde: Hêrmâ Nabî, the Ethiop. V of P. H. examined. Leipz. 1876 (criticised by Harnack in the "Theol. Lit. Ztg." 1877, fol. 58), and G. and H’s Proleg. xxxiv. sqq.

O. v. Gebhardt, and Harnack: Patrum Apost. Opera, Fascic. III. Lips. 1877. Greek and Latin. A very careful recension of the text (from the Sinaitic MS.) by v. Gebhardt, with ample Prolegomena (84 pages), and a critical and historical commentary by Harnack.

Funk’s fifth ed. of Hefele’s Patres Apost. I. 334–563. Gr. and Lat. Follows mostly the text of Von Gebhardt.

Ad. Hilgenfeld: Hermae Pastor. Graece e codicibus Sinaitico et Lipsiensi ... restituit, etc. Ed. altera emendata et valde aucta. Lips. 1881. With Prolegomena and critical annotations (257 pp.). By the same: Hermae Pastor Graece integrum ambitu. Lips., 1887 (pp. 130). From the Athos and Sinaitic MSS.

S. P. Lambros (Prof. in Athens): A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas, together with an Introduction. Translated and edited by J. A. Robinson, Cambridge, 1888.

English translations by Wake (1693, from the Latin version); F. Crombie (Vol. I. of the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library." 1867, from the Greek of the Sinait. MS.), by Charles H. Hoole (1870, from Hilgenfeld’s first ed. of 1866,) and by Robinson (1888).

Essays.

C. Reinh. Jachmann: Der Hirte der Hermas. Königsberg, 1835.

Ernst Gaâb: Der Hirte des Hermas. Basel, 1866 (pp. 203).

Theod. Zahn: Der Hirt des Hermas. Gotha 1868. (Comp. also his review of Gaâb in the Studien und Kritiken for 1868, pp. 319–349).

Charles R. Hoole (of Christ Church, Oxf.): The Shepherd of Hermas translated into English, with an Introduction and Notes. Lond., Oxf. and Cambr. 1870 (184 pages).

Gust. Heyne: Quo tempore Hermae Pastor scriptus sit. Regimonti, 1872.

J. Donaldson: The Apostolical Fathers (1874) p. 318–392.

H. M. Behm: Der Verfasser der Schrift., welche d. Titel "Hirt" führt. Rostock, 1876 (71 pp.).

Brüll: Der Hirt des Hermas. Nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht. Freiburg i. B. 1882. The same: Ueber den Ursprung des ersten Clemensbriefs und des Hirten des Hermas. 1882.

Ad. Link: Christi Person und Werk im Hirten des Hermas. Marburg, 1886. Die Einheit des Pastor Hermae. Mar b. 1888. Defends the unity of Hermas against Hilgenfeld.

P. Baumgärtner: Die Einheit des Hermas-Buches. Freiburg, 1889. He mediates between Hilgenfeld and Link, and holds that the book was written by one author, but at different times.

I. The Shepherd of Hermas(98) has its title from the circumstance that the author calls himself Hermas and is instructed by the angel of repentance in the costume of a shepherd. It is distinguished from all the productions of the apostolic fathers by its literary form. It is the oldest Christian allegory, an apocalyptic book, a sort of didactic religious romance. This accounts in part for its great popularity in the ancient church. It has often been compared with Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and Dante’s Divina Commedia, though far inferior in literary merit and widely different in theology from either. For a long time it was only known in an old, inaccurate Latin translation, which was first published by Faber Stapulensis in 1513; but since 1856 and 1862, we have it also in the original Greek, in two texts, one hailing from Mount Athos re-discovered and compared by Lambros, and another (incomplete) from Mount Sinai.

Character and Contents. The Pastor Hermae is a sort of system of Christian morality in an allegorical dress, and a call to repentance and to renovation of the already somewhat slumbering and secularized church in view of the speedily approaching day of judgment. It falls into three books:(99)

Visions; four visions and revelations, which were given to the author, and in which the church appears to him first in the form of a venerable matron in shining garments with a book, then as a tower, and lastly as a virgin. All the visions have for their object to call Hermas and through him the church to repentance, which is now possible, but will close when the church tower is completed.

It is difficult to decide whether the writer actually had or imagined himself to have had those visions, or invented them as a pleasing and effective mode of instruction, like Dante’s vision and Bunyan’s dream.

Mandats, or twelve commandments, prescribed by a guardian angel in the garb of a shepherd.
Similitudes, or ten parables, in which the church again appears, but now in the form of a building, and the different virtues are represented under the figures of stones and trees. The similitudes were no doubt suggested by the parables of the gospel, but bear no comparison with them for beauty and significance.

The scene is laid in Rome and the neighborhood. The Tiber is named, but no allusion is made to the palaces, the court, the people and society of Rome, or to any classical work. An old lady, virgins, and angels appear, but the only persons mentioned by name are Hermas, Maximus, Clement and Grapte.

The literary merit of the Shepherd is insignificant. It differs widely from apostolic simplicity and has now only an antiquarian interest, like the pictures and sculptures of the catacombs. It is prosy, frigid, monotonous, repetitious, overloaded with uninteresting details, but animated by a pure love of nature and an ardent zeal for doing good. The author was a self-made man of the people, Ignorant of the classics and Ignored by them, but endowed with the imaginative faculty and a talent for popular religious instruction. He derives lessons of wisdom and piety from shepherd and sheep, vineyards and pastures, towers and villas, and the language and events of every-day life.

The first Vision is a fair specimen of the book, which opens like a love story, but soon takes a serious turn. The following is a faithful translation:

"He who had brought me up, sold me to a certain Rhoda at Rome.(100) Many years after, I met her again and began to love her as a sister. Some time after this, I saw her bathing in the river Tiber, and I gave her my hand and led her out of the river. And when I beheld her beauty, I thought in my heart, saying: ’Happy should I be, if I had a wife of such beauty and goodness.’ This was my only thought, and nothing more.

"After some time, as I went into the villages and glorified the creatures of God, for their greatness, and beauty, and power, I fell asleep while walking. And the Spirit seized me and carried me through a certain wilderness through which no man could travel, for the ground was rocky and impassable, on account of the water.

"And when I had crossed the river, I came to a plain; and falling upon my knees, I began to pray unto the Lord and to confess my sins. And while I was praying, the heaven opened, and I beheld the woman that I loved saluting me from heaven, and saying: ’Hail, Hermas!’ And when I beheld her, I said unto her: ’Lady, what doest thou here?’ But she answered and said: ’I was taken up, in order that I might bring to light thy sins before the Lord.’ And I said unto her: ’Hast thou become my accuser?’ ’No,’ said she; ’but hear the words that I shall say unto thee. God who dwells in heaven, and who made the things that are out of that which is not, and multiplied and increased them on account of his holy church, is angry with thee because thou hast sinned against me.’ I answered and said unto her: ’Have I sinned against thee? In what way? Did I ever say unto thee an unseemly word? Did I not always consider thee as a lady? Did I not always respect thee as a sister? Why doest thou utter against me, O Lady, these wicked and foul lies?’ But she smiled and said unto me: ’The desire of wickedness has entered into thy heart. Does it not seem to thee an evil thing for a just man, if an evil desire enters into his heart? Yea, it is a sin, and a great one (said she). For the just man devises just things, and by devising just things is his glory established in the heavens, and he finds the Lord merciful unto him in all his ways; but those who desire evil things in their hearts, bring upon themselves death and captivity, especially they who set their affection upon this world, and who glory in their wealth, and lay not hold of the good things to come. The souls of those that have no hope, but have cast themselves and their lives away, shall greatly regret it. But do thou pray unto God, and thy sins shall be healed, and those of thy whole house and of all the saints.’

"After she had spoken these words, the heavens were closed, and I remained trembling all over and was sorely troubled. And I said within myself: ’If this sin be set down against me, how can I be saved? or how can I propitiate God for the multitude of my sins? or with what words shall I ask the Lord to have mercy upon me?’

"While I was meditating on these things, and was musing on them in my heart, I beheld in front of me a great white chair made out of fleeces of wool; and there came an aged woman, clad in very shining raiment, and having a book in her hand, and she sat down by herself on the chair and saluted me, saying: ’Hail, Hermas!" And I, sorrowing and weeping, said unto her: ’Hail, Lady!’ And she said unto me: ’Why art thou sorrowful, O Hermas, for thou wert wont to be patient, and good-tempered, and always smiling? Why is thy countenance cast down? and why art thou not cheerful?’ And I said unto her: ’O Lady, I have been reproached by a most excellent woman, who said unto me that I sinned against her.’ And she said unto me: ’Far be it from the servant of God to do this thing. But of a surety a desire after her must have come into thy heart. Such an intent as this brings a charge of sin against the servant of God; for it is an evil and horrible intent that a devout and tried spirit should lust after an evil deed; and especially that the chaste Hermas should do so-he who abstained from every evil desire, and was full of all simplicity, and of great innocence!’

" ’But [she continued] God is not angry with thee on account of this, but in order that thou mayest convert thy house, which has done iniquity against the Lord, and against you who art their parent. But thou, in thy love for your children (filovtekno" wjn) didst not rebuke thy house, but didst allow it to become dreadfully wicked. On this account is the Lord angry with thee; but He will heal all the evils that happened aforetime in thy house; for through the sins and iniquities of thy household thou hast been corrupted by the affairs of this life. But the mercy of the Lord had compassion upon thee, and upon thy house, and will make thee strong and establish thee in His glory. Only be not slothful, but be of good courage and strengthen thy house. For even as the smith, by smiting his work with the hammer, accomplishes the thing that he wishes, so shall the daily word of righteousness overcome all iniquity. Fail not, therefore, to rebuke thy children, for I know that if they will repent with all their heart, they will be written in the book of life, together with the saints.’

"After these words of hers were ended, she said unto me: ’Dost thou wish to hear me read?’ I said unto her: ’Yea, Lady, I do wish it.’ She said unto me: ’Be thou a hearer, and listen to the glories of God.’ Then I heard, after a great and wonderful fashion, that which my memory was unable to retain; for all the words were terrible, and beyond man’s power to bear. The last words, however, I remembered; for they were profitable for us, and gentle: ’Behold the God of power, who by his invisible strength, and His great wisdom, has created the world, and by His magnificent counsel hath crowned His creation with glory, and by His mighty word has fixed the heaven, and founded the earth upon the waters, and by His own wisdom and foresight has formed His holy church, which He has also blessed! Behold, He removes the heavens from their places, and the mountains, and the hills, and the stars, and everything becomes smooth before His elect, that He may give unto them the blessing which He promised them with great glory and joy, if only they shall keep with firm faith the laws of God which they have received.’

"When, therefore, she had ended her reading, and had risen up from the chair, there came four young men, and took up the chair, and departed towards the east. Then she called me, and touched my breast, and said unto me: ’Hast thou been pleased with my reading?’ And I said unto her: ’Lady, these last things pleased me; but the former were hard and harsh.’ But she spake unto me, saying: ’These last are for the righteous; but the former are for the heathen and the apostates." While she was yet speaking with me, there appeared two men, and they took her up in their arms and departed unto the east, whither also the chair had gone. And she departed joyfully; and as she departed, she said: ’Be of good courage, O Hermas!’

The theology of Hermas is ethical and practical. He is free from speculative opinions and Ignorant of theological technicalities. He views Christianity as a new law and lays chief stress on practice. Herein he resembles James, but he ignores the "liberty" by which James distinguishes the "perfect" Christian law from the imperfect old law of bondage. He teaches not only the merit, but the supererogatory merit of good works and the sin-atoning virtue of martyrdom. He knows little or nothing of the gospel, never mentions the word, and has no idea of justifying faith, although he makes faith the chief virtue and the mother of virtues. He dwells on man’s duty and performance more than on God’s gracious promises and saving deeds. In a word, his Christianity is thoroughly legalistic and ascetic, and further off from the evangelical spirit than any other book of the apostolic fathers. Christ is nowhere named, nor his example held up for imitation (which is the true conception of Christian life); yet he appears as "the Son of God, and is represented as pre-existent and strictly divine.(101) The word Christian never occurs.

But this meagre view of Christianity, far from being heretical or schismatic, is closely connected with catholic orthodoxy as far as we can judge from hints and figures. Hermas stood in close normal relation to the Roman congregation (either under Clement or Pius), and has an exalted view of the "holy church," as he calls the church universal. He represents her as the first creature of God for which the world was made, as old and ever growing younger; yet he distinguishes this ideal church from the real and represents the latter as corrupt. He may have inferred this conception in part from the Epistle to the Ephesians, the only one of Paul’s writings with which he shows himself familiar. He requires water-baptism as indispensable to salvation, even for the pious Jews of the old dispensation, who received it from the apostles in Hades.(102) He does not mention the eucharist, but this is merely accidental. The whole book rests on the idea of an exclusive church out of which there is no salvation. It closes with the characteristic exhortation of the angel: "Do good works, ye who have received earthly blessings from the Lord, that the building of the tower (the church) may not be finished while ye loiter; for the labor of the building has been interrupted for your sakes. Unless, therefore, ye hasten to do right, the tower will be finished, and ye will be shut out."

Much of the theology of Hermas is drawn from the Jewish apocalyptic writings of pseudo-Enoch, pseudo-Esdras, and the lost Book of Eldad and Medad.(103) So his doctrine of angels. He teaches that six angels were first created and directed the building of the church. Michael, their chief, writes the law in the hearts of the faithful; the angel of repentance guards the penitent against relapse and seeks to bring back the fallen. Twelve good spirits which bear the names of Christian virtues, and are seen by Hermas in the form of Virgins, conduct the believer into the kingdom of heaven; twelve unclean spirits named from the same number of sins hinder him. Every man has a good and an evil genius. Even reptiles and other animals have a presiding angel. The last idea Jerome justly condemns as foolish.

It is confusing and misleading to judge Hermas from the apostolic conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.(104) That conflict was over. John shows no traces of it in his Gospel and Epistles. Clement of Rome mentions Peter and Paul as inseparable. The two types had melted into the one Catholic family, and continued there as co-operative elements in the same organization, but were as yet very imperfectly understood, especially the free Gospel of Paul. Jewish and pagan features reappeared, or rather they never disappeared, and exerted their influence for good and evil. Hence there runs through the whole history of Catholicism a legalistic or Judaizing, and an evangelical or Pauline tendency; the latter prevailed in the Reformation and produced Protestant Christianity. Hermas stood nearest to James and furthest from Paul; his friend Clement of Rome stood nearer to Paul and further off from James: but neither one nor the other had any idea of a hostile conflict between the apostles.

Relation to the Scriptures. Hermas is the only one of the apostolic fathers who abstains from quoting the Old Testament Scriptures and the words of our Lord. This absence is due in part to the prophetic character of the Shepherd, for prophecy is its own warrant, and speaks with divine authority. There are, however, indications that he knew several books of the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Mark, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Ephesians. The name of Paul is nowhere mentioned, but neither are the other apostles. It is wrong, therefore, to infer from this silence an anti-Pauline tendency. Justin Martyr likewise omits the name, but shows acquaintance with the writings of Paul.(105)

V. Relation to Montanism. The assertion of the prophetic gift and the disciplinarian rigorism Hermas shares with the Montanists; but they arose half a century later, and there is no historic connection. Moreover his zeal for discipline does not run into schismatic excess. He makes remission and absolution after baptism difficult, but not impossible; he ascribes extra merit to celibacy and seems to have regretted his own unhappy marriage, but he allows second marriage as well as second repentance, at least till the return of the Lord which, with Barnabas, he supposes to be near at hand. Hence Tertullian as a Montanist denounced Hermas.

Authorship and time of composition. Five opinions are possible. (a) The author was the friend of Paul to whom he sends greetings in Rom. 16:14, in the year 58. This is the oldest opinion and accounts best for its high authority.(106) (b) A contemporary of Clement, presbyter-bishop of Rome, a.d. 92–101. Based upon the testimony of he book itself.(107) (c) A brother of Bishop Pius of Rome (140). So asserts an unknown author of 170 in the Muratorian fragment of the canon.(108) But he may have confounded the older and younger Hermas with the Latin translator. (d) The book is the work of two or three authors, was begun under Trajan before 112 and completed by the brother of Pius in 140.(109) (e) Hermas is a fictitious name to lend apostolic authority to the Shepherd. (f) Barely worth mentioning is the isolated assertion of the Ethiopian version that the apostle Paul wrote the Shepherd under the name of Hermas which was given to him by the inhabitants of Lystra.

We adopt the second view, which may be combined with the first. The author calls himself Hermas and professes to be a contemporary of the Roman Clement, who was to send his book to foreign churches.(110) This testimony is clear and must outweigh every other. If the Hermas mentioned by Paul was a young disciple in 58, he may well have lived to the age of Trajan, and be expressly represents himself as an aged man at the time when he wrote.

We further learn from the author that he was a rather unfortunate husband and the father of bad children, who had lost his wealth in trade through his own sins and those of his neglected sons but who awoke to repentance and now came forward himself, as a plain preacher of righteousness, though without any official position, and apparently a mere layman.(111) He had been formerly a slave and sold by his master to a certain Christian lady in Rome by the name of Rhoda. It has been inferred from his Greek style that be was born in Egypt and brought up in a Jewish family.(112) But the fact that he first mistook the aged woman who represents the church, for the heathen Sibyl, rather suggests that he was of Gentile origin. We may infer the same from his complete silence about the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament. He says nothing of his conversion.

The book was probably written at the close of the first or early in the second century. It shows no trace of a hierarchical organization, and assumes the identity of presbyters and bishops; even Clement of Rome is not called a bishop.(113) The state of the church is indeed described as corrupt, but corruption began already in the apostolic age, as we see from the Epistles and the Apocalypse. At the time of Irenaeus the book was held in the highest esteem, which implies its early origin.

Authority and value. No product of post-apostolic literature has undergone a greater change in public esteem. The Shepherd was a book for the times, but not for all times. To the Christians of the second and third century it had all the charm of a novel from the spirit-world, or as Bunyan’s Pilgrims’ Progress has at the present day. It was even read in public worship down to the time of Eusebius and Jerome, and added to copies of the Holy Scriptures (as the Codex Sinaiticus, where it follows after the Ep. of Barnabas). Irenaeus quotes it as "divine Scripture."(114) The Alexandrian fathers, who with all their learning were wanting in sound critical discrimination, regarded it as "divinely inspired," though Origen intimates that others judged less favorably.(115) Eusebius classes it with the "spurious," though orthodox books, like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, etc.; and Athanasius puts it on a par with the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, which are useful for catechetical instruction.

In the Latin church where it originated, it never rose to such high authority. The Muratorian canon regards it as apocryphal, and remarks that "it should be read,(116) but not publicly used in the church or numbered among the prophets or the apostles." Tertullian, who took offence at its doctrine of the possibility of a second repentance, and the lawfulness of second marriage, speaks even contemptuously of it.(117) So does Jerome in one passage, though he speaks respectfully of it in another.(118) Ambrose and Augustin Ignore it. The decree of Pope Gelasius I. (about 500) condemns the book as apocryphal. Since that time it shared the fate of all Apocrypha, and fell into entire neglect. The Greek original even disappeared for centuries, until it turned up unexpectedly in the middle of the nineteenth century to awaken a new interest, and to try the ingenuity of scholars as one of the links in the development of catholic Christianity.

Note.

The Pastor Hermae has long ceased to be read for devotion or entertainment. We add some modern opinions. Mosheim (who must have read it very superficially) pronounced the talk of the heavenly spirits in Hermas to be more stupid and insipid than that of the barbers of his day, and concluded that he was either a fool or an impostor. The great historian Niebuhr, as reported by Bunsen, used to say that he pitied the Athenian [why not the Roman?] Christians who were obliged to listen to the reader of such a book in the church. Bunsen himself pronounces it "a well-meant but silly romance."

On the other hand, some Irvingite scholars, Dr. Thiersch and Mr. Gaâb, have revived the old belief in a supernatural foundation for the visions, as having been really seen and recorded in the church of Rome during the apostolic age, but afterwards modified and mingled with errors by the compiler under Pius. Gaâb thinks that Hermas was gifted with the power of vision, and inspired in the same sense as Swedenborg.

Westcott ascribes "the highest value" to the Shepherd, "as showing in what way Christianity was endangered by the influence of Jewish principles as distinguished from Jewish forms." Hist. of the Canon of the N. T p. 173 (second ed.)

Donaldson (a liberal Scotch Presbyterian) thinks that the Shepherd "ought to derive a peculiar interest from its being the first work extant, the main effort of which is to direct the soul to God. The other religious books relate to internal workings in the church—this alone specially deals with the great change requisite to living to God .... Its creed is a very short and simple one. Its great object is to exhibit the morality implied in conversion, and it is well calculated to awaken a true sense of the spiritual foes that are ever ready to assail him." (Ap. Fath., p. 339). But he also remarks (p. 336) that "nothing would more completely show the immense difference between ancient Christian feeling and modern, than the respect in which ancient, and a large number of modern Christians hold this work."

George A. Jackson (an American Congregationalist) judges even more favorably (Ap. Fath., 1879, p. 15): Reading the ’Shepherd,’ and remembering that it appeared in the midst of a society differing little from that satirized by Juvenal, we no longer wonder at the esteem in which it was held by the early Christians, but we almost join with them in calling it an inspired book."

Mr. Hoole, of Oxford, agrees with the judgment of Athanasius, and puts its literary character on the same footing as the pious but rude art of the Roman catacombs.

Dr. Salmon, of Dublin, compares Hermas with Savonarola, who sincerely believed: (a) that the church of his time was corrupt and worldly; (b) that a time of great tribulation was at hand, in which the dross should be purged away; (c) that there was still an intervening time for repentance; (d) that he himself was divinely commissioned to be a preacher of that repentance.

§ 169. Papias.

(I.) The fragments of Papias collected in Routh: Reliquiae, Sacrae, ed. II., Oxf., 1846, vol. I., 3–16. Von Gebhardt and Harnack: Patres Apost., Appendix: Papice Fragmenta, I., 180–196. English translation in Roberts and Donaldson. "Ante-Nicene Library." I., 441–448.

Passages on Papias in Irenaeus: Adv. Haer., v. 33, §§ 3, 4. Euseb. H. E. III. 36, 39; Chron. ad Olymp. 220, ed. Schöne II. 162. Also a few later notices; see Routh and the Leipz. ed. of P. A.. The Vita S. Papiae, by the Jesuit Halloix, Duaei, l633, is filled with a fanciful account of the birth, education, ordination, episcopal and literary labors of the saint, of whom very little is really known.

(II.) Separate articles on Papias, mostly connected with the Gospel question, by Schleiermacher (on his testimonies concerning Matthew and Mark in the "Studien und Kritiken" for l832, p. 735); Th. Zahn (ibid. 1866, No. IV. p. 649 sqq.); G. E. Steitz (in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1868, No. 1. 63–95, and art. Papias in Herzog’s Encyc." ed. I. vol. XI., 78–86; revised by Leimbach in ed. II. vol. XI. 194–206); James Donaldson (The Apost. Fathers 1874, p. 393–402); Bishop Lightfoot (in the "Contemporary Review" for Aug., 1875, pp. 377–403; a careful examination of the testimonies of Papias concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew against the misstatements in "Supernatural Religion"); Leimbach (Das Papiasfragment, 1875) Weiffenbach Das Papiasfragment, 1874 and 1878); Hilgefeld ("Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol." 1875, 239 sqq.); Ludemann (Zur Erklärunq des Papiasfragments, in the "Jahrbücher für protest. Theol.," 1879, p. 365 sqq.); H. Holtzmann (Papias und Johannes, in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theologie," 1880, pp. 64–77). Comp. also Westcott on the Canon of the N. T., p. 59–68.

Papias, a disciple of John(119) and friend of Polycarp, was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, till towards the middle of the second century. According to a later tradition in the "Paschal Chronicle," he suffered martyrdom at Pergamon about the same time with Polycarp at Smyrna. As the death of the latter has recently been put back from 166 to 155, the date of Papias must undergo a similar change; and as his contemporary friend was at least 86 years old, Papias was probably born about a.d. 70, so that he may have known St. John, St. Philip the Evangelist, and other primitive disciples who survived the destruction of Jerusalem.

Papias was a pious, devout and learned student of the Scriptures, and a faithful traditionist, though somewhat credulous and of limited comprehension.(120) He carried the heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel. His associations give him considerable weight. He went to the primitive sources of the Christian faith. "I shall not regret," he says, "to subjoin to my interpretations [of the Lord’s Oracles], whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the elders (para; tw'n presbutevrwn) and have recorded it to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony. For I did not, like most men, delight in those who speak much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who record the commands of others [or new and strange commands], but in those who record the commands given by the Lord to our faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If then any one who had attended on the elders came, I made it a point to inquire what were the words of the elders; what Andrew, or what Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I was of opinion that I could not derive so much benefit from books as from the living and abiding voice."(121) He collected with great zeal the oral traditions of the apostles and their disciples respecting the discourses and works of Jesus, and published them in five books under the title: "Explanation of the Lord’s Discourses."(122)

Unfortunately this book, which still existed in the thirteenth century, is lost with the exception of valuable and interesting fragments preserved chiefly by Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these are his testimonies concerning the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Petrine Gospel of Mark, which figure so prominently in all the critical discussions on the origin of the Gospels.(123) The episode on the woman taken in adultery which is found in some MSS. of John 7:53–8:11, or after Luke 21:38, has been traced to the same source and was perhaps to illustrate the word of Christ, John 8:15 ("I judge no man"); for Eusebius reports that Papias "set forth another narrative concerning a woman who was maliciously accused before the Lord of many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."(124) If so, we are indebted to him for the preservation of a precious fact which at once illustrates in a most striking manner our Saviour’s absolute purity in dealing with sin, and his tender compassion toward the sinner. Papias was an enthusiastic chiliast, and the famous parable of the fertility of the millennium which he puts in the Lord’s mouth and which Irenaeus accepted in good faith, may have been intended as an explanation of the Lord’s word concerning the fruit of the vine which he shall drink new in his Father’s kingdom, Matt. 26:29.(125) His chiliasm is no proof of a Judaizing tendency, for it was the prevailing view in the second century. He also related two miracles, the resurrection of a dead man which took place at the time of Philip (the Evangelist), as he learned from his daughters, and the drinking of poison without harm by Justus Barsabas.

Papias proves the great value which was attached to the oral traditions of the apostles and their disciples in the second century. He stood on the threshold of a new period when the last witnesses of the apostolic age were fast disappearing, and when it seemed to be of the utmost importance to gather the remaining fragments of inspired wisdom which might throw light on the Lord’s teaching, and guard the church against error.

But he is also an important witness to the state of the canon before the middle of the second century. He knew the first two Gospels, and in all probability also the Gospel of John, for he quoted, as Eusebius expressly says, from the first Epistle of John, which is so much like the fourth Gospel in thought and style that they stand or fall as the works of one and the same author.(126) He is one of the oldest witnesses to the inspiration and credibility of the Apocalypse of John, and commented on a part of it.(127) He made use of the first Epistle of Peter, but is silent as far as we know concerning Paul and Luke. This has been variously explained from accident or Ignorance or dislike, but best from the nature of his design to collect only words of the Lord. Hermas and Justin Martyr likewise Ignore Paul, and yet knew his writings. That Papias was not hostile to the great apostle may be inferred from his intimacy with Polycarp, who lauds Paul in his Epistle.

Notes.

The relation of Papias to the Apostle John is still a disputed point. Irenaeus, the oldest witness and himself a pupil of Polycarp, calls Papias jIwavnnou me;n avkousth;", Polukavrpou de; eJtai'ro" (Adv. Haer. V. 33, 4). He must evidently mean here the Apostle John. Following him, Jerome and later writers (Maximus Confessor, Andrew of Crete and Anastasius Sinaita) call him a disciple of the Apostle John, and this view has been defended with much learning and acumen by Dr. Zahn (1866), and, independently of him, by Dr. Milligan (on John the Presbyter, in Cowper’s "Journal of Sacred Literature" for Oct., 1867, p. 106 sqq.), on the assumption of the identity of the Apostle John with "Presbyter John;" comp. 2 and 3 John, where the writer calls himself oJ presbuvtero". Riggenbach (on John the Ap. and John the Presbyter, in the "Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie," 1868, pp. 319–334), Hengstenberg, Leimbach, take the same view (also Schaff in History of the Apost. Ch., 1853, p. 421).

On the other hand, Eusebius (H. E. III. 39) infers that Papias distinguishes between John the Apostle and "the Presbyter John" (oJ presbuvtero" jIwavnnh") so called, and that he was a pupil of the Presbyter only. He bases the distinction on a fragment he quotes from the introduction to the "Explanation of the Lord’s Discourses," where Papias says that he ascertained the primitive traditions: tiv jAndreva" h] tiv Pevtro" ei, h] tiv Fivlippo" h] tiv qwma'" h] jIavkwbo" h] tiv jIwavnnh" [the Apostle] h] Matqai'o", h] ti" e{tero" tw'n tou' kurivou maqhtw'n, a{ te jAristivwn kai; oJ presbuvtero" jIwavnnh", oiJ tou' kurivou [not tw'n ajpostovlwn] maqhtai;, levgousin [present tense]. Here two Johns seem to be clearly distinguished; but the Presbyter John, together with an unknown Aristion, is likewise called a disciple of the Lord (not of the Apostles). The distinction is maintained by Steitz, Tischendorf, Keim, Weiffenbach, Lüdemann, Donaldson, Westcott, and Lightfoot. In confirmation of this view, Eusebius states that two graves were shown at Ephesus bearing the name of John (III 39: duvo ejn jEfevsw/ genevsqai mnhvmata, kai; ejkavteron jIwavnnou ejti nu'n levgesqai). But Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 9, suggests, that both graves were only memories of the Apostle. Beyond this, nothing whatever is known of this mysterious Presbyter John, and it was a purely critical conjecture of the anti-millennarian Dionysius of Alexandria that he was the author of the Apocalypse (Euseb. VII. 25). The substance of the mediaeval legend of "Prester John" was undoubtedly derived from another source.

In any case, it is certainly possible that Papias, like his friend Polycarp, may have seen and heard the aged apostle who lived to the close of the first or the beginning of the second century. It is therefore unnecessary to charge Irenaeus with an error either of name or memory. It is more likely that Eusebius misunderstood Papias, and is responsible for a fictitious John, who has introduced so much confusion into the question of the authorship of the Johannean Apocalypse.

§ 170. The Epistle to Diognetus.

Editions.

Epistola Ad Diognetum, ed. Otto (with Lat. transl., introduction and critical notes), ed. II. Lips. 1852.

In the Leipz. edition of the Apost. Fathers, by O. v. Gebhardt and Ad Harnack, I. 216–226; in the Tübingen ed. of Hefele-Funk, I. pp 310–333.

W. A. Hollenberg: Der Brief an Diognet. Berl. 1853.

E. M. Krenkel: Epistola, ad Diogn. Lips. 1860.

English translation: in Kitto’s "Journal of S. Lit." 1852, and in vol. I of the "Ante-Nicene Library." Edinb. 1867.

French versions by P. le Gras, Paris 1725; M. de Genoude, 1838; A. Kayser, 1856.

Discussions.

Otto: De Ep. ad Diognetum. 1852.

A. Kayser: La Lettre à Diognète 1856 (in "Révue de Théologie ").

G. J. Snoeck: Specimen theologicum exhibens introductionem in Epistolan ad Diogn. Lugd. Bat. 1861.

Donaldson: A Critical Hist. of Christian Liter., etc. Lond., 1866, II 126 sqq. He was inclined to assume that Henry Stephens, the first editor, manufactured the Ep., but gave up the strange hypothesis, which was afterwards reasserted by Cotterill in his Peregrinus Proteus, 1879.

Franz Overbeck: Ueber den pseudo-justinischen Brief an Diognet. Basel 1872. And again with additions in his Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche (Schloss-Chemnitz, 1875), p. 1–92. He represents the Ep. (like Donaldson) as a post-Constantinian fiction, but has been refuted by Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lipsius, and Dräseke.

Joh. Dräseke: Der Brief an Diognetos. Leipz. 1881 (207 pp.). Against Overbeck and Donaldson. The Ep. was known and used by Tertullian, and probably composed in Rome by a Christian Gnostic (perhaps Appelles). Unlikely.

Heinr. Kihn (R.C.): Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet. Freiburg i. B. 1882 (XV. and 168 pages).

Semisch: art. Diognet, in Herzog² III. 611–615 (and in his Justin der Märt., 1840, vol. I. 172 sqq.); Schaff, in McClintock and Strong, III. 807 sq., and Birks, in Smith and Wace, II. 162–167.

The Ep. to D. has also been discussed by Neander, Hefele, Credner, Möhler, Bunsen, Ewald, Dorner, Hilgenfeld, Lechler, Baur, Harnack, Zahn, Funk, Lipsius, Keim (especially in Rom und das Christhum, 460–468).

The short but precious document called the Epistle to Diognetus was unknown in Christian literature(128) until Henry Stephens, the learned publisher of Paris, issued it in Greek and Latin in 1592, under the name of Justin Martyr.(129) He gives no account of his sources. The only Codex definitely known is the Strassburg Codex of the thirteenth century, and even this (after having been thoroughly compared by Professor Cunitz for Otto’s edition), was destroyed in the accidental fire at Strassburg during the siege of 1870.(130) So great is the mystery hanging over the origin of this document, that some modern scholars have soberly turned it into a post-Constantinian fiction in imitation of early Christianity, but without being able to agree upon an author, or his age, or his nationality.

Yet this most obscure writer of the second century is at the same time the most brilliant; and while his name remains unknown to this day, he shed lustre on the Christian name in times when it was assailed and blasphemed from Jew and Gentile, and could only be professed at the risk of life. He must be ranked with the "great unknown" authors of Job and the Epistle to the Hebrews, who are known only to God.

Diognetius was an inquiring heathen of high social position and culture, who desired information concerning the origin and nature of the religion of the Christians, and the secret of their contempt of the world, their courage in death, their brotherly love, and the reason of the late origin of this new fashion, so different from the gods of the Greeks and the superstition of the Jews. A Stoic philosopher of this name instructed Marcus Aurelius in his youth (about 133) in painting and composition, and trained him in Attic simplicity of life, and "whatever else of the kind belongs to Grecian discipline." Perhaps he taught him also to despise the Christian martyrs, and to trace their heroic courage to sheer obstinacy. It is quite probable that our Diognetus was identical with the imperial tutor; for he wished especially to know what enabled these Christians "to despise the world and to make light of death."(131)
The Epistle before us is an answer to the questions of this noble heathen. It is a brief but masterly vindication of Christian life and doctrine from actual experience. It is evidently the product of a man of genius, fine taste and classical culture It excels in fresh enthusiasm of faith, richness of thought, and elegance of style, and is altogether one of the most beautiful memorials of Christian antiquity, unsurpassed and hardly equalled by any genuine work of the Apostolic Fathers.(132)
Contents. The document consists of twelve chapters. It opens with an address to Diognetus who is described as exceedingly desirous to learn the Christian doctrine and mode of worship in distinction from that of the Greeks and the Jews. The writer, rejoicing in this opportunity to lead a Gentile friend to the path of truth, exposes first the vanity of idols (ch. 2), then the superstitions of the Jews (ch. 3, 4); after this he gives by contrasts a striking and truthful picture of Christian life which moves in this world like the invisible, immortal soul in the visible, perishing body (ch. 5 and 6),(133) and sets forth the benefits of Christ’s coming (ch. 7). He next describes the miserable condition of the world before Christ (ch. 8), and answers the question why He appeared so late (ch. 9). In this connection occurs a beautiful passage on redemption, fuller and clearer than any that can be found before Irenaeus.(134) He concludes with an account of the blessings and moral effects which flow from the Christian faith (ch. 10). The last two chapters which were probably added by a younger contemporary, and marked as such in the MS., treat of knowledge, faith and spiritual life with reference to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in paradise. Faith opens the paradise of a higher knowledge of the mysteries of the supernatural world.

The Epistle to Diognetus forms the transition from the purely practical literature of the Apostolic Fathers to the reflective theology of the Apologists. It still glows with the ardor of the first love. It is strongly Pauline.(135) It breathes the spirit of freedom and higher knowledge grounded in faith. The Old Testament is Ignored, but without any sign of Gnostic contempt.

Authorship and Time of composition. The author calls himself "a disciple of the Apostles,"(136) but this term occurs in the appendix, and may be taken in a wider sense. In the MS. the letter is ascribed to Justin Martyr, but its style is more elegant, vigorous and terse than that of Justin and the thoughts are more original and vigorous.(137) It belongs, however, in all probability, to the same age, that is, to the middle of the second century, rather earlier than later. Christianity appears in it as something still new and unknown to the aristocratic society, as a stranger in the world, everywhere exposed to calumny and persecution of Jews and Gentiles. All this suits the reign of Antoninus Pius and of Marcus Aurelius. If Diognetus was the teacher of the latter as already suggested, we would have an indication of Rome, as the probable place of composition.

Some assign the Epistle to an earlier date under Trajan or Hadrian,(138) others to the reign of Marcus Aurelius,(139) others to the close of the second century or still later.(140) The speculations about the author begin with Apollos in the first, and end with Stephens in the sixteenth century. He will probably remain unknown.(141)

§ 171. Sixtus of Rome.

Enchiridion SIXTI philosophi Pythagorici, first ed. by Symphor. Champerius, Lugd. 1507 (under the title: Sixtii Xysti Anulus); again at Wittenberg with the Carmina aurea of Pythagoras, 1514; by Beatus Rhenanus, Bas. 1516; in the "Maxima Bibliotheca Vet. Patrum." Lugd. 1677, Tom. III. 335–339 (under the title Xysti vel Sexti Pythagorici philosophi ethnici Sententicae, interprete Rufino Presbytero Aquilejensi); by U. G. Siber, Lips. 1725 (under the name of Sixtus II. instead of Sixtus I.); and by Gildemeister (Gr., Lat. and Syr.),Bonn 1873.

A Syriac Version in P. Lagardii Analecta Syriaca, Lips. and Lond. 1858 (p. 1–31, only the Syriac text, derived from seven MSS. of the Brit. Museum, the oldest before a.d. 553, but mutilated).

The book is discussed in the "Max. Bibl." l. c.; by Fontaninus: Historia liter. Aquilejensis (Rom. 1742); by Fabricius, in the Bibliotheca Graeca, Tom. I. 870 sqq. (ed. Harles, 1790); by Ewald: Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. VII. (Göttingen, 1859), p. 321–326; and by Tobler in Annulus Rufini, Sent. Sext. (Tübingen 1878).

Xystus, or as the Romans spelled the name, Sextus or Sixtus I., was the sixth bishop of Rome, and occupied this position about ten years under the reign of Hadrian (119–128).(142) Little or nothing is known about him except that he was supposed to be the author of a remarkable collection of moral and religious maxims, written in Greek, translated into Latin by Rufinus and extensively read in the ancient church. The sentences are brief and weighty after the manner of the Hebrew Proverbs and the Sermon on the Mount. They do not mention the prophets or apostles, or even the name of Christ, but are full of God and sublime moral sentiments, only bordering somewhat on pantheism.(143) If it is the production of a heathen philosopher, he came nearer the genius of Christian ethics than even Seneca, or Epictetus, or Plutarch, or Marcus Aurelius; but the product has no doubt undergone a transformation in Christian hands, and this accounts for its ancient popularity, and entitles it to a place in the history of ecclesiastical literature. Rufinus took great liberties as translator; besides, the MSS. vary very much.

Origen first cites in two places the Gnomae or Sententiae of Sextus (gnw'mai Sevxtou), as a work well known and widely read among the Christians of his times, i.e., in the first half of the second century, but he does not mention that the writer was a bishop, or even a Christian. Rufinus translated them with additions, and ascribes them to Sixtus, bishop of Rome and martyr. But Jerome, who was well versed in classical literature, charges him with prefixing the name of a Christian bishop to the product of a christless and most heathenish Pythagorean philosopher, Xystus, who is admired most by those who teach Stoic apathy and Pelagian sinlessness. Augustin first regarded the author as one of the two Roman bishops Sixti, but afterwards retracted his opinion, probably in consequence of Jerome’s statement. Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus ascribe it to Xystus of Rome. Gennadius merely calls the work Xysti Sententiae. Pope Gelasius declares it spurious and written by heretics.(144) More recent writers (as Fontanini, Brucker, Fabricius, Mosheim) agree in assigning it to the elder Quintus Sextus or Sextius (Q. S. Pater), a Stoic philosopher who declined the dignity of Roman Senator offered to him by Julius Caesar and who is highly lauded by Seneca. He abstained from animal food, and subjected himself to a scrupulous self-examination at the close of every day. Hence this book was entirely ignored by modern church historians.(145) But Paul de Lagarde, who published a Syriac Version, and Ewald have again directed attention to it and treat it as a genuine work of the first Pope Xystus. Ewald puts the highest estimate on it. "The Christian conscience," he says," appears here for the first time before all the world to teach all the world its duty, and to embody the Christian wisdom of life in brief pointed sentences." .(146) But it seems impossible that a Christian sage and bishop should write a system of Christian Ethics or a collection of Christian proverbs without even mentioning the name of Christ.

Notes.

The following is a selection of the most important of the 430 Sentences of Xystus from the Bibliotheca Maxima Veterum Patrum, Tom. III. 335–339. We add some Scripture parallels:

"1. Fidelis homo, electus homo est. 2. Electus homo, homo Dei est. 3. Homo Dei est, qui Deo dIgnus est. 4. Deo dIgnus est, qui nihil indigne agit. 5. Dubius in fide, infidelis est. 6. Infidelis homo, mortuus est corpore vivente. 7. Vere fidelis est, qui non peccat, atque etiam, in minimis caute agit. 8. Non est minimum in humana vita, negligere minima. 9. Omne peccatum impietatem puta. Non enim manus, vel oculus peccat, vel aliquod huiusmodi membrum, sed male uti manu vel oculo, peccatum est. 10. Omne membrum corporis, quod invitat te contra pudicitiam agere, abjiciendum est.

Melius est uno membro vivere, quam cum duobus puniri [Comp. Matt. 5:29] ....

"15. Sapiens vir, et pecuniae contemptor, similis est Deo. 16. Rebus mundanis in causis tantum necessariis utere. 17. Quae mundi sunt, mundo et quae Dei sunt, reddantur Deo [Comp. Matt. 22:21]. 18. Certus esto, quod animam tuam fidele depositum acceperis à Deo. 19. Cum loqueris Deo, scito quod judiceris à Deo. 20. Optimam purificationem putato, nocere nemini. 21. Enim purificatur Dei verbo per sapientiam ... .

"28. Quaecumque fecit Deus, pro hominibus ea fecit. 29. Angelus minister est Dei ad hominem. 30. Tam pretiosus est homo apud Deum, quam angelus. 31. Primus beneficus est Deus: secundus est is, qui beneficii eius fit particeps homo. Vive igitur ita, tanquam qui sis secundus post Deum, et electus ab eo. 32. Habes, inquam, in te aliquid simile Dei, et ideo utere teipso velut templo Dei, propter illud quod te simile est Dei [1 Cor. 3:16, 17] ...

"40. Templum sanctum est Deo mens pii, et altare est optimum ei cor mundum et sine peccato. 41. Hostia soli Deo acceptabilis, benefacere hominibus pro Deo. 42. Deo gratiam praestat homo, qui quantum possibile est vivit secundum Deum ....

"47. Omne tempus, quo Deo non cogitas, hoc puta te perdidisse. 48. Corpus quidem tuum incedat in terra, anima autem semper sit apud Deum. 49. Intellige quae, sint bona, ut bene agas. 50. Bona cogitatio hominis Deum non latet et ideo cogitatio tua pura sit ab omni malo. 51. Dignus esto eo, qui te dignatus est filium dicere, et age omnia ut filius Dei. 52. Quod Deum patrem vocas, huius in actionibus tuis memor esto. 53. Vir castus et sine peccato, potestatem accepit a Deo esse filius Dei [Comp. John 1:13]. 54. Bona mens chorus est Dei. 55. Mala mens chorus est daemonum malorum ....

Fundamentum pietatis est continentia: culmen autem pietatis amor Dei. 79. Pium hominem habeto tamquam teipsum. 80. Opta tibi evenire non quod vis, sed quod expedit. 81. Qualem vis esse proximum tuum tibi, talis esto et tu tais proximis [Luke 6:31,] ....

"86. Si quid non vis scire Deum, istud nec agas, nec cogites, 87. Priusquam agas quodcunque agis, cogita Deum, ut lux eius paecedat actus tuos ... .

"96. Deus in bonis actibus hominibus dux est. 97. Neminem inimicum deputes. 98. Dilige omne quod eiusdem tecum naturae est, Deum vero plus quam animam dilige. 99. Pessimum est peccatoribus, in unum convenire cum peccant. 100. Multi cibi impediunt castitatem, et incontinentia ciborum immundum facit hominem. 101. Animantium omnium usus quidem in cibis indifferens, abstinere vero rationabilius est. 102. Non cibi per os inferuntur polluunt hominem, sed ea quae ex malis actibus proferuntur [Mark 7:18–21] ....

"106. Mali nullius autor est Deus. 107. Non amplius possideas quam usus corporis poscit ....

"115. Ratio quae in te est, vitae, tuâe lux est [Matt. 6:22]. 116. Ea pete a Deo, quae accipere ab homine non potes ...

"122. Nil pretiosum ducas, quod auferre a te possit homo malus. 123. Hoc solum bonum putato, quod Deo dignum est. 124. Quod Deo dignum est, hoc et viro bono. 125. Quicquid non convenit ad beatudinem Dei. non conveniat nomini Dei. 126. Ea debes velle, quae et Deus vult. 127. Filius Dei est, qui haec sola pretiosa ducit quae et Deus. 139. Semper apud Deum mens est sapientIs. 137. Sapientis mentem Deus inhabitat ....

"181. Sapiens vir etiamsi nudus sit, sapiens apud te habeatur. 182. Neminem propterea magni aestimes, quod pecunia divitiisque abundet. 183. Difficile est divitem salvari [Matt. 19:3] ...

"187. Age magna, non magna pollicens. 188. Non eris sapiens, si te reputaveris sapientem. 189. Non potest bene vivere qui non integre credit. 190. In tribulationibus quis sit fidelis, agnoscitur. 191. Finem vitae existima vivere secundum Deum. 192. Nihil putes malum, quod non sit turpe ... .

"198. Malitia est aegritudo animae. 199. Animae autem mors iniustitia et impietas. 200. Tunc te putato fidelem, cum passionibus animae carueris. 201. Omnibus hominibus ita utere, quasi communis omnium post Deum curator. 202. Qui hominibus male utitur, seipso male utitur. 203. Qui nihil mali vult, fidelis est ....

"214. Verba tua pietate semper plena sint. 215. In actibus tuis ante oculos pone Deum. 216. Nefas est Deum patrem invocare, et aliquid inhonestum agere ....

"261. Ebrietatem quasi insaniam fuge. 262. Homo qui a ventre vincitur, belluae similis est. 263. Ex carne nihil oritur bonum ....

"302. Omne quod malum est, Deo inimicum est. 303. Qui sapit in te, hunc dicito esse hominem. 304. Particeps Dei est vir sapiens. 305. Ubi est quod sapit in te, ibi est et bonum tuum. 306. Bonum in carne non quaeras. 307. Quod animae non nocet, nec homini. 308. Sapientem hominem tanquam Dei ministrum honora post Deum ....

"390. Quaecunque dat mundus, nemo firmiter tenet. 391. Quaecumque dat Deus nemo auferre potest. 392. Divina sapientia vera est scientia ....

"403. Animae ascensus ad Deum per Dei verbum est. 404. Sapiens sequitur Deum, et Deus animam sapientis. 405. Gaudet rex super his quos regit, gaudet ergo Deus super sapiente. Inseparabilis est et ab his quos regit ille, qui regit, ita ergo et Deus ab anima sapientis quam tuetur et regit. 406. Reqitur a Deo vir sapiens, et idcirco beatus est ... .

"424. Si non diligis Deum, non ibis ad Deum. 425. Consuesce teipsum semper respicere ad Deum. 426. Intuendo Deum videbis Deum. 427. Videns Deum facies mentem tuam qualis est Deus. 428. Excole quod intra te est, nec ei ex libidine corporis contumeliam facias. 429. Incontaminatum custodi corpus tuum, tanquam si indumentum acceperis à Deo, et sicut vestimentum corporis immaculatum servare stude. 430. Sapiens mens speculam est Dei."

§ 172. The Apologists. Quadratus and Aristides.

On the Apologetic Lit. in general, see § 28, p. 85 sq., and § 37, p. 104.

We now proceed to that series of ecclesiastical authors who, from the character and name of their chief writings are called Apologists. They flourished during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius, when Christianity was exposed to the literary as well as bloody persecution of the heathen world. They refuted the charges and slanders of Jews and Gentiles, vindicated the truths of the Gospel, and attacked the errors and vices of idolatry. They were men of more learning and culture than the Apostolic Fathers. They were mostly philosophers and rhetoricians, who embraced Christianity in mature age after earnest investigation, and found peace in it for mind and heart. Their writings breathe the same heroism, the same enthusiasm for the faith, which animated the martyrs in their sufferings and death.

The earliest of these Apologists are Quadratus and Aristides who wrote against the heathen, and Aristo of Pella, who wrote against the Jews, all in the reign of Hadrian (117–137).

Quadratus ( ) was a disciple of the apostles, and bishop (presbyter) of Athens. His Apology is lost. All we know of him is a quotation from Eusebius who says: "Quadratus addressed a discourse to Aelius Hadrian, as an apology for the religion that we profess; because certain malicious persons attempted to harass our brethren. The work is still in the hands of some of the brethren, as also in our own; from which any one may see evident proof, both of the understanding of the man, and of his apostolic faith. This writer shows the antiquity of the age in which he lived, in these passages: ’The deeds of our Saviour,’ says he, ’were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.’ Such was Quadratus."

Aristides was an eloquent philosopher at Athens who is mentioned by Eusebius as a contemporary of Quadratus.(147) His Apology likewise disappeared long ago, but a fragment of it was recently recovered in an Armenian translation and published by the Mechitarists in 1878.(148) It was addressed to Hadrian, and shows that the preaching of Paul in Athens had taken root. It sets forth the Christian idea of God as an infinite and indescribable Being who made all things and cares for all things, whom we should serve and glorify as the only God; and the idea of Christ, who is described as "the Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching. It was he who according to the flesh was born from the race of the Hebrews, of the mother of God, the Virgin Mariam. He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth. And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."

A curious feature in this document is the division of mankind into four parts, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians.

Aristo of Pella, a Jewish Christian of the first half of the second century, was the author of a lost apology of Christianity against Judaism.(150)

§ 173. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr.

Editions of Justin Martyr.

**Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera omnia, in the Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi, ed. Jo. Car. Th. de Otto,* Jen. 1847, 3d ed. 1876–’81. 5 vols. 8vo. Contains the genuine, the doubtful, and the spurious works of Justin Martyr with commentary, and Maran’s Latin Version.

Older ed. (mostly incomplete) by Robt. Stephanus, Par., 1551; Sylburg, Heidelb., 1593; Grabe, Oxon., 1700 (only the Apol. I.); Prudent. Maranus, Par., 1742 (the Bened. ed.), republ. at Venice, 1747, and in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. Tom. VI. (Paris, 1857), c. 10–800 and 1102–1680, with additions from Otto. The Apologies were also often published separately, e.g. by Prof B. L. Gildersleeve, N. Y. 1877, with introduction and notes.

On the MSS. of Justin see Otto’s Proleg., p. xx. sqq., and Harnack, Texte. Of the genuine works we have only two, and they are corrupt, one in Paris, the other in Cheltenham, in possession of Rev. F. A. Fenwick (see Otto, p. xxiv.).

English translation in the Oxford "Library of the Fathers," Lond., 1861, and another by G. J. Davie in the "Ante-Nicene Library," Edinb. Vol. II., 1867 (465 pages), containing the Apologies, the Address to the Greeks, the Exhortation, and the Martyrium, translated by M. Dods; the Dialogue with Trypho, and On the Sole Government of God, trsl. by G. Reith; and also the writings of Athenagoras, trsl. by B. P. Pratten. Older translations by Wm. Reeves, 1709, Henry Brown, 1755, and J. Chevallier, 1833 (ed. II., 1851). On German and other versions see Otto, Prol. LX. sqq.

Works on Justin Martyr.

Bp. Kaye: Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr. Cambr., 1829, 3d ed., 1853.

C. A. Credner: Beiträge zur Einleitung in die bibl. Schriften. Halle, vol. I., 1832 (92–267); also in Vol. II., 1838 (on the quotations from the O. T., p. 17–98; 104–133; 157–311). Credner discusses with exhaustive learning Justin’s relation to the Gospels and the Canon of the N. T., and his quotations from the Septuagint. Comp. also his Geschichte des N. T Canon, ed. by Volkmar, 1860.

C. Semisch: Justin der Märtyrer.* Breslau, 1840 and 1842, 2 vols. Very thorough and complete up to date of publication. English translation by Ryland, Edinb., 1844, 2 vols. Comp. Semisch: Die apostol. Denkwürdigkeiten des Just. M. (Hamb. and Gotha, 1848), and his article Justin in the first ed. of Herzog, VII. (1857), 179–186.

Fr. Böhringer: Die Kirchengesch. in Biographien. Vol. I. Zürich, 1842, ed. II., 1861, p. 97–270.

Ad. Hilgenfeld: Krit. Untersuchungen ueber die Evangelien Justin’s. Halle, 1850. Also: Die Ap. Gesch. u. der M. Just. in his "Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.," 1872, p. 495–509, and Ketzergesch., 1884, pp. 21 sqq.

**J. C. Th. Otto: Zur Characteristik des heil. Justinus.* Wien, 1852. His art. Justinus der Apologete, in "Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklop." Second Section, 30^th part (1853), pp. 39–76. Comp. also his Prolegomena in the third ed. of Justin’s works. He agrees with Semisch in his general estimate of Justin.

C. G. Seibert: Justinus, der Vertheidiger des Christenthums vor dem Thron der Caesaren. Elberf., 1859.

Ch. E. Freppel (R.C. Bp.): Les Apologistes Chrétiens du II.^e siècle. Par., 1860.

L. Schaller: Les deux Apologies de Justin M. au point de vie dogmatique. Strasb., 1861.

B. Aubé: De l’apologetique Chrétienne au II.^e siècle. Par., 1861; and S. Justin philosophe et martyr, 1875.

E. de Pressensé, in the third vol. of his Histoire des trois premiers siècles, or second vol. of the English version (1870), which treats of Martyrs and Apologists, and his art. in Lichtenberger VII. (1880) 576–583.

Em. Ruggieri: Vita e dottrina di S. Giustino. Rom., 1862.

**J. Donaldson: Hist. of Ante-Nicene Christian Literature.* Lond., vol. II. (1866), which treats of Justin M., pp. 62–344.

C. Weizsäcker: Die Theologie des Märtyrers Justinus* in the "Jahrbücher fur Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1867 (vol. XII., I. pp. 60–120).

Renan: L’église chrétienne (Par., 1879), ch. XIX., pp. 364–389, and ch. XXV. 480 sqq.

Moritz von Engelhardt (d. 1881): Das Christenthum Justins des Märtyrers.* Erlangen, 1878. (490 pages, no index.) With an instructive critical review of the various treatments of Irenaeus and his place in history (p. 1–70). See also his art. Justin in Herzog², VII.

G. F. Purves: The Testimony of Justin M. to Early Christianity. New York. 1888.

Adolf Stähelin: Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuster Beurtheiler. Leipzig, 1880 (67 pages). A careful review of Engelhardt’s monograph.

Henry Scott Holland: Art. Justinus Martyr, in Smith and Wace III. (1880), 560–587.

Ad. Harnack: Die Werke des Justin, in "Texte und Untersuchungen," etc. Leipz., 1882. I. 130–195.

The relation of Justin to the Gospels is discussed by Credner, Semisch, Hilgenfeld, Norton, Sanday, Westcott, Abbot; his relation to the Acts by Overbeck (1872) and Hilgenfeld; his relation to the Pauline Epistles by H. D. Tjeenk Willink (1868), Alb. Thoma (1875), and v. Engelhardt (1878).

The most eminent among the Greek Apologists of the second century is Flavius Justinus, surnamed "Philosopher and Martyr."(151) He is the typical apologist, who devoted his whole life to the defense of Christianity at a time when it was most assailed, and he sealed his testimony with his blood. He is also the first Christian philosopher or the first philosophic theologian. His writings were well known to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Photius, and the most important of them have been preserved to this day.

I. His Life. Justin was born towards the close of the first century, or in the beginning of the second, in the Graeco-Roman colony of Flavia Neapolis, so called after the emperor Flavius Vespasian, and built near the ruins of Sychem in Samaria (now Nablous). He calls himself a Samaritan, but was of heathen descent, uncircumcised, and ignorant of Moses and the prophets before his conversion. Perhaps he belonged to the Roman colony which Vespasian planted in Samaria after the destruction of Jerusalem. His grandfather’s name was Greek (Bacchius), his father’s (Priscus) and his own, Latin. His education was Hellenic. To judge from his employment of several teachers and his many journeys, he must have had some means, though he no doubt lived in great simplicity and may have been aided by his brethren.

His conversion occurred in his early manhood. He himself tells us the interesting story.(152) Thirsting for truth as the greatest possession, he made the round of the systems of philosophy and knocked at every gate of ancient wisdom, except the Epicurean which he despised. He first went to a Stoic, but found him a sort of agnostic who considered the knowledge of God impossible or unnecessary; then to a Peripatetic, but he was more anxious for a good fee than for imparting instruction; next to a celebrated Pythagorean, who seemed to know something, but demanded too much preliminary knowledge of music, astronomy and geometry before giving him an insight into the highest truths. At last he threw himself with great zeal into the arms of Platonism under the guidance of a distinguished teacher who had recently come to his city.(153) He was overpowered by the perception of immaterial things and the contemplation of eternal ideas of truth, beauty, and goodness. He thought that he was already near the promised goal of this philosophy—the vision of God—when, in a solitary walk not far from the sea-shore, a venerable old Christian of pleasant countenance and gentle dignity, entered into a conversation with him, which changed the course of his life. The unknown friend shook his confidence in all human wisdom, and pointed him to the writings of the Hebrew prophets who were older than the philosophers and had seen and spoken the truth, not as reasoners, but as witnesses. More than this: they had foretold the coming of Christ, and their prophecies were fulfilled in his life and work. The old man departed, and Justin saw him no more, but he took his advice and soon found in the prophets of the Old Testament as illuminated and confirmed by the Gospels, the true and infallible philosophy which rests upon the firm ground of revelation. Thus the enthusiastic Platonist became a believing Christian.

To Tatian also, and Theophilus at Antioch, and Hilary, the Jewish prophets were in like manner the bridge to the Christian faith. We must not suppose, however, that the Old Testament alone effected his conversion; for in the Second Apology, Justin distinctly mentions as a means the practical working of Christianity. While he was yet a Platonist, and listened to the calumnies against the Christians, he was struck with admiration for their fearless courage and steadfastness in the face of death.(154)

After his conversion Justin sought the society of Christians, and received from them instruction in the history and doctrine of the gospel. He now devoted himself wholly to the spread and vindication of the Christian religion. He was an itinerant evangelist or teaching missionary, with no fixed abode and no regular office in the church.(155) There is no trace of his ordination; he was as far as we know a lay-preacher, with a commission from the Holy Spirit; yet be accomplished far more for the good of the church than any known bishop or presbyter of his day. "Every one," says he, "who can preach the truth and does not preach it, incurs the judgment of God." Like Paul, he felt himself a debtor to all men, Jew and Gentile, that he might show them the way of salvation. And, like Aristides, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Heraclas, Gregory Thaumaturgus, he retained his philosopher’s cloak,(156) that he might the more readily discourse on the highest themes of thought; and when he appeared in early morning (as he himself tells us), upon a public walk, many came to him with a "Welcome, philosopher!"(157) He spent some time in Rome where he met and combated Marcion. In Ephesus he made an effort to gain the Jew Trypho and his friends to the Christian faith.

He labored last, for the second time, in Rome. Here, at the instigation of a Cynic philosopher, Crescens, whom he had convicted of ignorance about Christianity, Justin, with six other Christians, about the year 166, was scourged and beheaded. Fearlessly and joyfully, as in life, so also in the face of death, he bore witness to the truth before the tribunal of Rusticus, the prefect of the city, refused to sacrifice, and proved by his own example the steadfastness of which he had so often boasted as a characteristic trait of his believing brethren. When asked to explain the mystery of Christ, he replied: "I am too little to say something great of him." His last words were: "We desire nothing more than to suffer for our Lord Jesus Christ; for this gives us salvation and joyfulness before his dreadful judgment seat, at which all the world must appear."

Justin is the first among the fathers who may be called a learned theologian and Christian thinker. He had acquired considerable classical and philosophical culture before his conversion, and then made it subservient to the defense of faith. He was not a man of genius and accurate scholarship, but of respectable talent, extensive reading, and enormous memory. He had some original and profound ideas, as that of the spermatic Logos, and was remarkably liberal in his judgment of the noble heathen and the milder section of the Jewish Christians. He lived in times when the profession of Christ was a crime under the Roman law against secret societies and prohibited religious. He had the courage of a confessor in life and of a martyr in death. It is impossible not to admire his fearless devotion to the cause of truth and the defense of his persecuted brethren. If not a great man, he was (what is better) an eminently good and useful man, and worthy of an honored place in "the noble army of martyrs."(158)

Writings. To his oral testimony Justin added extensive literary labors in the field of apologetics and polemics. His pen was incessantly active against all the enemies of Christian truth, Jews, Gentiles, and heretics.

His chief works are apologetic, and still remain, namely, his two Apologies against the heathen, and his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho The First or larger Apology (68 chapters) is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (137–161) and his adopted sons, and was probably written about a.d. 147, if not earlier; the Second or smaller Apology (25 chapters) is a supplement to the, former, perhaps its conclusion, and belongs to the same reign (not to that of Marcus Aurelius).(159) Both are a defense of the Christians and their religion against heathen calumnies and persecutions. He demands nothing but justice for his brethren, who were condemned without trial simply as Christians and suspected criminals. He appeals from the, lower courts and the violence of the mob to the highest tribunal of law, and feels confident that such wise and philosophic rulers as he addresses would acquit them after a fair hearing. He ascribes the persecutions to the instigation of the demons who tremble for their power and will soon be dethroned.

The Dialogue (142 chapters) is more than twice as large as the two Apologies, and is a vindication of Christianity from Moses and the prophets against the objections of the Jews. It was written after the former (which are referred to in ch. 120), but also in the reign of Antoninus Pius, i.e., before a.d. 161 probably about a.d. 148.(160) In the Apologies he speaks like a philosopher to philosophers; in the Dialogue as a believer in the Old Testament with a son of Abraham. The disputation lasted two days, in the gymnasium just before a voyage of Justin, and turned chiefly on two questions, how the Christians could profess to serve God, and yet break his law, and how they could believe in a human Saviour who suffered and died. Trypho, whom Eusebius calls "the most distinguished among the Hebrews of his day," was not a fanatical Pharisee, but a tolerant and courteous Jew, who evasively confessed at last to have been much instructed, and asked Justin to come again, and to remember him as a friend. The book is a storehouse of early interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures.

The polemic works, Against all Heresies, and Against Marcion, are lost. The first is mentioned in the First Apology; of the second, Irenaeus has preserved some fragments; perhaps it was only a part of the former.(161) Eusebius mentions also a Psalter of Justin, and a book On the Soul, which have wholly disappeared.

Doubtful works which bear Justin’s name, and may have been written by him: An address To the Greeks; (162) a treatise On the Unity of God; another On the Resurrection.
Spurious works attributed to him: The Epistle to Diognetus probably of the same date, but by a superior writer, (163) the Exhortation to the Greeks,(164) the Deposition of the True Faith, the epistle To Zenas and Serenus, the Refutation of some Theses of Aristotle, the Questions to the Orthodox, the Questions of the Christians to the Heathens, and the Questions of the Heathens to the Christians. Some of these belong to the third or later centuries.(165)

The genuine works of Justin are of unusual importance and interest. They bring vividly before us the time when the church was still a small sect, despised and persecuted, but bold in faith and joyful in death. They everywhere attest his honesty and earnestness, his enthusiastic love for Christianity, and his fearlessness in its defense against all assaults from without and perversions from within. He gives us the first reliable account of the public worship and the celebration of the sacraments. His reasoning is often ingenious and convincing but sometimes rambling and fanciful, though not more so than that of other writers of those times. His style is fluent and lively, but diffuse and careless. He writes under a strong impulse of duty and fresh impression without strict method or aim at rhetorical finish and artistic effect. He thinks pen in hand, without looking backward or forward, and uses his memory more than books. Only occasionally, as in the opening of the Dialogue, there is a touch of the literary art of Plato, his old master.(166) But the lack of careful elaboration is made up by freshness and truthfulness. If the emperors of Rome had read the books addressed to them they must have been strongly impressed, at least with the honesty of the writer and the innocence of the Christians.(167)

Theology. As to the sources of his religious knowledge, Justin derived it partly from the Holy Scriptures, partly from the living church tradition. He cites, most frequently, and generally from memory, hence often inaccurately, the Old Testament prophets (in the Septuagint), and the "Memoirs" of Christ, or "Memoirs by the Apostles," as he calls the canonical Gospels, without naming the authors.(168) He says that they were publicly read in the churches with the prophets of the Old Testament. He only quotes the words and acts of the Lord. He makes most use of Matthew and Luke, but very freely, and from John’s Prologue (with the aid of Philo whom he never names) he derived the inspiration of the Logos-doctrine, which is the heart of his theology.(169) He expressly mentions the Revelation of John. He knew no fixed canon of the New Testament, and, like Hernias and Papias, he nowhere notices Paul; but several allusions to passages of his Epistles (Romans, First Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.), can hardly be mistaken, and his controversy with Marcion must have implied a full knowledge of the ten Epistles which that heretic included in his canon. Any dogmatical inference from this silence is the less admissible, since, in the genuine writings of Justin, not one of the apostles or evangelists is expressly named except John once, and Simon Peter twice, and "the sons of Zebedee whom Christ called Boanerges," but reference is always made directly to Christ and to the prophets and apostles in general.(170) The last are to him typified in the twelve bells on the border of the high priest’s garment which sound through the whole world. But this no more excludes Paul from apostolic dignity than the names of the twelve apostles on the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). They represent the twelve tribes of Israel, Paul the independent apostolate of the Gentiles.

Justin’s exegesis of the Old Testament is apologetic, typological and allegorical throughout. He finds everywhere references to Christ, and turned it into a text book of Christian theology. He carried the whole New Testament into the Old without discrimination, and thus obliterated the difference. He had no knowledge of Hebrew,(171) and freely copied the blunders and interpolations of the Septuagint. He had no idea of grammatical or historical interpretation. He used also two or three times the Sibylline Oracles and Hystaspes for genuine prophecies, and appeals to the Apocryphal Acts of Pilate as an authority. We should remember, however, that he is no more credulous, inaccurate and uncritical than his contemporaries and the majority of the fathers.

Justin forms the transition from the apostolic fathers to the church fathers properly so called. He must not be judged by the standard of a later orthodoxy, whether Greek, Roman, or Evangelical, nor by the apostolic conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, or Ebionism and Gnosticism, which at that time had already separated from the current of Catholic Christianity. It was a great mistake to charge him with Ebionism. He was a converted Gentile, and makes a sharp distinction between the church and the synagogue as two antagonistic organizations. He belongs to orthodox Catholicism as modified by Greek philosophy. The Christians to him are the true people of God and heirs of all the promises. He distinguishes between Jewish Christians who would impose the yoke of the Mosaic law (the Ebionites), and those who only observe it themselves, allowing freedom to the Gentiles (the Nazarenes); the former he does not acknowledge as Christians, the latter be treats charitably, like Paul in Romans ch. 14 and 15. The only difference among orthodox Christians which he mentions is the belief in the millennium which he held, like Barnabas, Irenaeus and Tertullian, but which many rejected. But, like all the ante-Nicene writers, be had no clear insight into the distinction between the Old Testament and the New, between the law and the gospel, nor any proper conception of the depth of sin and redeeming grace, and the justifying power of faith. His theology is legalistic and ascetic rather than evangelical and free. He retained some heathen notions from his former studies, though he honestly believed them to be in full harmony with revelation.

Christianity was to Justin, theoretically, the true philosophy,(172) and, practically, a new law of holy living and dying.(173) The former is chiefly the position of the Apologies, the latter that of the Dialogue.

He was not an original philosopher, but a philosophizing eclectic, with a prevailing love for Plato, whom be quotes more frequently than any other classical author. He may be called, in a loose sense, a Christian Platonist. He was also influenced by Stoicism. He thought that the philosophers of Greece had borrowed their light from Moses and the prophets. But his relation to Plato after all is merely external, and based upon fancied resemblances. He illuminated and transformed his Platonic reminiscences by the prophetic Scriptures, and especially by the Johannean doctrine of the Logos and the incarnation. This is the central idea of his philosophical theology. Christianity is the highest reason. The Logos is the preexistent, absolute, personal Reason, and Christ is the embodiment of it, the Logos incarnate. Whatever is rational is Christian, and whatever is Christian is rational.(174) The Logos endowed all men with reason and freedom, which are not lost by the fall. He scattered seeds ( ) of truth before his incarnation, not only among the Jews but also among the Greeks and barbarians, especially among philosophers and poets, who are the prophets of the heathen. Those who lived reasonably ( ) and virtuously in obedience to this preparatory light were Christians in fact, though not in name; while those who lived unreasonably ( ) were Christless and enemies of Christ.(175) Socrates was a Christian as well as Abraham, though he did not know it. None of the fathers or schoolmen has so widely thrown open the gates of salvation. He was the broadest of broad churchmen.

This extremely liberal view of heathenism, however, did not blind him to the prevailing corruption. The mass of the Gentiles are idolaters, and idolatry is under the control of the devil and the demons. The Jews are even worse than the heathen, because they sin against better knowledge. And worst of all are the heretics, because they corrupt the Christian truths. Nor did he overlook the difference between Socrates and Christ, and between the best of heathen and the humblest Christian. "No one trusted Socrates," he says, "so as to die for his doctrine but Christ, who was partially known by Socrates, was trusted not only by philosophers and scholars, but also by artizans and people altogether unlearned."

The Christian faith of Justin is faith in God the Creator, and in his Son Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and in the prophetic Spirit. All other doctrines which are revealed through the prophets and apostles, follow as a matter of course. Below the deity are good and bad angels; the former are messengers of God, the latter servants of Satan, who caricature Bible doctrines in heathen mythology, invent slanders, and stir up persecutions against Christians, but will be utterly overthrown at the second coming of Christ. The human soul is a creature, and hence perishable, but receives immortality from God, eternal happiness as a reward of piety, eternal fire as a punishment of wickedness. Man has reason and free will, and is hence responsible for all his actions; he sins by his own act, and hence deserves punishment. Christ came to break the power of sin, to secure forgiveness and regeneration to a new and holy life.

Here comes in the practical or ethical side of this Christian philosophy. It is wisdom which emanates from God and leads to God. It is a new law and a new covenant, promised by Isaiah and Jeremiah, and introduced by Christ. The old law was only for the Jews, the new is for the whole world; the old was temporary and is abolished, the new is eternal; the old commands circumcision of the flesh, the new, circumcision of the heart; the old enjoins the observance of one day, the new sanctifies all days; the old refers to outward performances, the new to spiritual repentance and faith, and demands entire consecration to God.

From the time of Justin Martyr, the Platonic Philosophy continued to exercise a direct and indirect influence upon Christian theology, though not so unrestrainedly and naively as in his case.(176) We can trace it especially in Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and even in St. Augustin, who confessed that it kindled in him an incredible fire. In the scholastic period it gave way to the Aristotelian philosophy, which was better adapted to clear, logical statements. But Platonism maintained its influence over Maximus, John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen, through the pseudo-Dionysian writings which first appear at Constantinople in 532, and were composed probably in the fifth century. They sent a whole system of the universe under the aspect of a double hierarchy, a heavenly and an earthly, each consisting of three triads.

The Platonic philosophy offered many points of resemblance to Christianity. It is spiritual and idealistic, maintaining the supremacy of the spirit over matter, of eternal ideas over all temporary phenomena, and the pre-existence and immortality of the soul; it is theistic, making the supreme God above all the secondary deities, the beginning, middle, and end of all things; it is ethical, looking towards present and future rewards and punishments; it is religious, basing ethics, politics, and physics upon the authority of the Lawgiver and Ruler of the universe; it leads thus to the very threshold of the revelation of God in Christ, though it knows not this blessed name nor his saying grace, and obscures its glimpses of truth by serious errors. Upon the whole the influence of Platonism, especially as represented in the moral essays of Plutarch, has been and is to this day elevating, stimulating, and healthy, calling the mind away from the vanities of earth to the contemplation of eternal truth, beauty, and goodness. To not a few of the noblest teachers of the church, from Justin the philosopher to Neander the historian, Plato has been a schoolmaster who led them to Christ.

Notes.

The theology and philosophy of Justin are learnedly discussed by Maran, and recently by Möhler and Freppel in the Roman Catholic interest, and in favor of his full orthodoxy. Among Protestants his orthodoxy was first doubted by the authors of the "Magdeburg Centuries," who judged him from the Lutheran standpoint.

Modern Protestant historians viewed him chiefly with reference to the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. Credner first endeavored to prove, by an exhaustive investigation (1832), that Justin was a Jewish Christian of the Ebionitic type, with the Platonic Logos-doctrine attached to his low creed as an appendix. He was followed by the Tübingen critics, Schwegler (1846), Zeller, Hilgenfeld, and Baur himself (1853). Baur, however, moderated Credner’s view, and put, Justin rather between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, calling him a Pauline in fact, but not in name ("er ist der Sache nach Pauliner, aber dem Namen nach will er es nicht sein"). This shaky judgment shows the unsatisfactory character of the Tübingen construction of Catholic Christianity as the result of a conflux and compromise between Ebionism and Paulinism.

Ritschl (in the second ed. of his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 1857) broke loose from this scheme and represented ancient Catholicism as a development of Gentile Christianity, and Justin as the type of the "katholisch werde de Heidenchristenthum," who was influenced by Pauline ideas, but unable to comprehend them in their depth and fulness, and thus degraded the standpoint of freedom to a new form of legalism. This he calls a "herabgekommemer or abgeschwächter Paulinismus." Engelhardt goes a step further, and explains this degradation of Paulinism from the influences of Hellenic heathenism and the Platonic and Stoic modes of thought. He says (p. 485): "Justin was at once a Christian and a heathen. We must acknowledge his Christianity and his heathenism in order to understand him." Harnack (in a review of E., 1878) agrees with him, and lays even greater stress on the heathen element. Against this Stähelin (1880) justly protests, and vindicates his truly Christian character.

Among recent French writers, Aubé represents Justin’s theology superficially as nothing more than popularized heathen philosophy. Renan (p. 389) calls his philosophy "une sorte d’eclectisme fondé sur un rationalisme mystic." Freppel returns to Maran’s treatment, and tries to make the philosopher and martyr of the second century even a Vatican Romanist of the nineteenth.

For the best estimates of his character and merits see Neander, Semisch, Otto, von Engelhardt, Stähelin, Donaldson (II. 147 sqq.), and Holland (in Smith and Wace).

§ 174. The Other Greek Apologists. Tatian.

Lit. on the later Greek Apologists:

Otto: Corpus Apologetarum Christ. Vol. VI. (1861): Tatiani Assyrii Opera; vol. VII.: Athenagorus; vol. VIII.: Theophilus; Vol. IX.: Hermias, Quadratus, Aristides, Aristo, Miltiades, Melito, Apollinaris (Reliquiae) Older ed. by Maranus, 1742, reissued by Migne, 1857, in Tom. VI. of his "Patrol. Gr." A new ed. by O. v. Gebhardt and E. Schwartz, begun Leipz. 1888.

The third vol. of Donaldson’s Critical History of Christ. Lit. and Doctr., etc. (Lond. 1866) is devoted to the same Apologists. Comp. also Keim’s Rom und das Christenthum (1881), p. 439–495; and on the MSS. and early traditions Harnack’s Texte, etc. Band I. Heft. 1 and 2 (1882), and Schwartz in his ed. (1888).

On Tatian see § 131, p. 493–496.

Tatian of Assyria (110–172) was a pupil of Justin Martyr whom he calls a most admirable man ( ), and like him an itinerant Christian philosopher; but unlike him he seems to have afterwards wandered to the borders of heretical Gnosticism, or at least to an extreme type of asceticism. He is charged with having condemned marriage as a corruption and denied that Adam was saved, because Paul says: "We all die in Adam." He was an independent, vigorous and earnest man, but restless, austere, and sarcastic.(177) In both respects he somewhat resembles Tertullian. Before his conversion he had studied mythology, history, poetry, and chronology, attended the theatre and athletic games, became disgusted with the world, and was led by the Hebrew Scriptures to the Christian faith.(178)

We have from him an apologetic work addressed To the Greeks.(179) It was written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, probably in Rome, and shows no traces of heresy. He vindicates Christianity as the "philosophy of the barbarians," and exposes the contradictions, absurdities, and immoralities of the Greek mythology from actual knowledge and with much spirit and acuteness but with vehement contempt and bitterness. He proves that Moses and the prophets were older and wiser than the Greek philosophers, and gives much information on the antiquity of the Jews. Eusebius calls this "the best and most useful of his writings," and gives many extracts in his Praeparatio Evangelica.

The following specimens show his power of ridicule and his radical antagonism to Greek mythology and philosophy:

Ch. 21.—Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks respecting God compared.

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. (ejn ). I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse of Zeus came as an old woman to Semélé. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae, lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame. Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales. If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal. For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves; for, if the demons with you are such as they are said to be, they are worthless as to character; or, if regarded as symbols of the powers of nature, they are not what they are called. But I cannot be persuaded to pay religious homage to the natural elements, nor can I undertake to persuade my neighbor. And Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed.

But these things we have put forth only for argument’s sake; for it is not allowable even to compare our notions of God with those who are wallowing in matter and mud."

Ch. 25.—Boastings and quarrels of the philosophers.

What great and wonderful things have your philosophers effected? They leave uncovered one of their shoulders; they let their hair grow long; they cultivate their beards; their nails are like the claws of wild beasts. Though they say that they want nothing, yet, like Proteus [the Cynic, Proteus Peregrinus known to us from Lucian], they need a currier for their wallet, and a weaver for their mantle, and a woodcutter for their staff, and they need the rich [to invite them to banquets], and a cook also for their gluttony. O man competing with the dog [cynic philosopher], you know not God, and so have turned to the imitation of an irrational animal. You cry out in public with an assumption of authority, and take upon you to avenge your own self; and if you receive nothing, you indulge in abuse, for philosophy is with you the art of getting money. You follow the doctrines of Plato, and a disciple of Epicurus lifts up his voice to oppose you. Again, you wish to be a disciple of Aristotle, and a follower of Democritus rails at you. Pythagoras says that he was Euphorbus, and he is the heir of the doctrine of Pherecydes, but Aristotle impugns the immortality of the soul. You who receive from your predecessors doctrines which clash with one another, you the inharmonious, are fighting against the harmonious. One of you asserts "that God is body," but I assert that He is without body; "that the world is indestructible," but I assert that it is to be destroyed; "that a conflagration will take place at various times," but I say that it will come to pass once for all; "that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges," but I say that God Himself is Judge; "that the soul alone is endowed with immortality," but I say that the flesh also is endowed with it. What injury do we inflict upon you, O Greeks? Why do you hate those who follow the word of God, as if they were the vilest of mankind? It is not we who eat human flesh—they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon; and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."

Of great importance for the history of the canon and of exegesis is Tatian’s Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels, once widely circulated, then lost, but now measurably recovered.(180) Theodoret found more than two hundred copies of it in his diocese. Ephraem the Syrian wrote a commentary on it which was preserved in an Armenian translation by the Mechitarists at Venice, translated into Latin by Aucher (1841), and published with a learned introduction by Mösinger (1876). From this commentary Zahn has restored the text (1881). Since then an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron itself has been discovered and published by Ciasca (1888). The Diatessaron begins with the Prologue of John (In principio erat Verbum, etc.), follows his order of the festivals, assuming a two years’ ministry, and makes a connected account of the life of Christ from the four Evangelists. There is no heretical tendency, except perhaps in the omission of Christ’s human genealogies in Matthew and Luke, which may have been due to the influence of a docetic spirit. This Diatessaron conclusively proves the existence and ecclesiastical use of the four Gospels, no more and no less, in the middle of the second century.

§ 175. Athenagoras.

Otto, Vol. VII.; Migne, VI. 890–1023. Am. ed. by W. B. Owen, N. Y., 1875.

Clarisse: De Athenagorae vita, scriptis doctrina (Lugd. Bat. 1819); Donaldson, III. 107–178; Harnack, Texte, I. 176 sqq., and his art. "Athen." in Herzog² I. 748–750; Spencer Mansel in Smith and Wace, 1. 204–207; Renan, Marc-Auréle, 382–386.

Athenagoras was "a Christian philosopher of Athens," during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A. D., 161–180), but is otherwise entirely unknown and not even mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. (181) His philosophy was Platonic, but modified by the prevailing eclecticism of his age. He is less original as an apologist than Justin and Tatian, but more elegant and classical in style.

He addressed an Apology or Intercession in behalf of the Christians to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.(182) He reminds the rulers that all their subjects are allowed to follow their customs without hindrance except the Christians who are vexed, plundered and killed on no other pretence than that they bear the name of their Lord and Master. We do not object to punishment if we are found guilty, but we demand a fair trial. A name is neither good nor bad in itself, but becomes good or bad according to the character and deeds under it. We are accused of three crimes, atheism, Thyestean banquets (cannibalism), Oedipodean connections (incest). Then he goes on to refute these charges, especially that of atheism and incest. He does it calmly, clearly, eloquently, and conclusively. By a divine law, he says, wickedness is ever fighting against virtue. Thus Socrates was condemned to death, and thus are stories invented against us. We are so far from committing the excesses of which we are accused, that we are not permitted to lust after a woman in thought. We are so particular on this point that we either do not marry at all, or we marry for the sake of children, and only once in the course of our life. Here comes out his ascetic tendency which he shares with his age. He even condemns second marriage as "decent adultery." The Christians are more humane than the heathen, and condemn, as murder, the practices of abortion, infanticide, and gladiatorial shows.

Another treatise under his name, "On the Resurrection of the Dead, is a masterly argument drawn from the wisdom, power, and justice of God, as well as from the destiny of man, for this doctrine which was especially offensive to the Greek mind. It was a discourse actually delivered before a philosophical audience. For this reason perhaps he does not appeal to the Scriptures.

AlI historians put a high estimate on Athenagoras. "He writes," says Donaldson, "as a man who is determined that the real state of the case should be exactly known. He introduces similes, he occasionally has an antithesis, he quotes poetry but always he has his main object distinctly before his mind, and he neither makes a useless exhibition of his own powers, nor distracts the reader by digressions. His Apology is the best defence of the Christians produced in that age." Spencer Mansel declares him "decidedly superior to most of the Apologists, elegant, free from superfluity of language, forcible in style, and rising occasionally into great powers of description, and in his reasoning remarkable for clearness and cogency."

Tillemont found traces of Montanism in the condemnation of second marriage and the view of prophetic inspiration, but the former was common among the Greeks, and the latter was also held by Justin M. and others. Athenagoras says of the prophets that they were in an ecstatic condition of mind and that the Spirit of God "used them as if a flute-player were breathing into his flute." Montanus used the comparison of the plectrum and the lyre.

§ 176. Theophilus of Antioch.

Otto, Vol. VIII. Migne, VI. Col. 1023–1168.

Donaldson, Critical History, III. 63–106. Renan, Marc-Aur. 386 sqq.

Theod. Zahn: Der Evanqelien-commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien. Erlangen 1883 (302 pages). The second part of his Forschung zur Gesch. des neutestam. Kanons und der altkirchlichen Lit. Also his Supplementum Clementinum, 1884, p. 198–276 (in self-defense against Harnack).

Harnack, Texte, etc. Bd. I., Heft II., 282–298., and Heft. IV. (I 8., 3), 97–175 (on the Gospel Commentary cf Theoph. against Zahn).

A. Hauck: Zur Theophilusfrage, Leipz. 1844, and in Herzog,² xv. 544.

W. Bornemann: Zur Theophilusfrage; In "Brieger’s Zeitschrift f. Kirchen-Geschte," 1888, p. 169–283

Theophilus was converted from heathenism by the study of the Scriptures, and occupied the episcopal see at Antioch, the sixth from the Apostles, during the later part of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. He died about a.d. 181.(183)

His principal work, and the only one which has come down to us, is his three books to Autolycus, an educated heathen friend.(184) His main object is to convince him of the falsehood of idolatry, and of the truth of Christianity. He evinces extensive knowledge of Grecian literature, considerable philosophical talent, and a power of graphic and elegant composition. His treatment of the philosophers and poets is very severe and contrasts unfavorably with the liberality of Justin Martyr. He admits elements of truth in Socrates and Plato, but charges them with having stolen the same from the prophets. He thinks that the Old Testament already contained all the truths which man requires to know. He was the first to use the term "triad" for the holy Trinity, and found this mystery already in the words: Let us make man "(Gen. 1:26); for, says he, "God spoke to no other but to his own Reason and his own Wisdom," that is, to the Logos and the Holy Spirit hypostatized.(185) He also first quoted the Gospel of John by name,(186) but it was undoubtedly known and used before by Tatian, Athenagoras, Justin, and by the Gnostics, and can be traced as far back as 125 within the lifetime of many personal disciples of the Apostle. Theophilus describes the Christians as having a sound mind, practising self-restraint, preserving marriage with one, keeping chastity, expelling injustice, rooting out sin, carrying out righteousness as a habit, regulating their conduct by law, being ruled by truth, preserving grace and peace, and obeying God as king. They are forbidden to visit gladiatorial shows and other public amusements, that their eyes and ears may not be defiled. They are commanded to obey authorities and to pray for them, but not to worship them.

The other works of Theophilus, polemical and exegetical, are lost. Eusebius mentions a book against Hermogenes, in which he used proofs from the Apocalypse of John, another against Marcion and "certain catechetical books" ( Gr. ) Jerome mentions in addition commentaries on the Proverbs, and on the Gospel, but doubts their genuineness. There exists under his name though only in Latin, a sort of exegetical Gospel Harmony, which is a later compilation of uncertain date and authorship.

Notes.

Jerome is the only ancient writer who mentions a Commentary or Commentaries of Theophilus on the Gospel, but adds that they are inferior to his other books in elegance and style; thereby indicating a doubt as to their genuineness. De Vir ill. 25: La734 "Legi sub nomine eius [Theophili] in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis Commentarios, (qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum [the works Contra Marcionem, Ad Autolycum, and *Contra Hermogenem] elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere." He alludes to the Gospel Commentary in two other passages (in the Pref. to his Com. on Matthew,* and Ep. 121 (ad Algasiam), and quotes from it the exposition of the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1 sqq.). Eusebius may possibly have included the book in the kathchtika; bibliva which he ascribes to Theophilus.

A Latin Version of this Commentary was first published (from MSS. not indicated and since lost) by Marg. de la Bigne in Sacrae, Bibliothecae Patrum, Paris 1576, Tom. V. Col. 169–196; also by Otto in the Corp. Apol. VIII. 278–324, and with learned notes by Zahn in the second vol. of his Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons (1883), p. 31–85. The Commentary begins with an explanation of the symbolical import of the four Gospels as follows: "Quatuor evangelia quatuor animalibus figurata Jesum Christum demonstrant. Matthaeus enim salvatorem nostrum natum passumque homini comparavit. Marcus leonis gerens figuram a solitudine incipit dicens: ’ Vox clamantis in deserto: parate viam Domini,’ sane qui regnat invictus. Joannes habet similitudinem aquilae, quod ab imis alta petiverit; ait enim: ’In principio erat Verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; hoc erat in principio apud Deum; vel quia Christus resurgens volavit ad cœlos. Lucas vituli speciem gestat, ad instar salvator noster est immolatus, vel quod sacerdotii figurat officium." The position of Luke as the fourth is very peculiar and speaks for great antiquity. Then follows a brief exposition of the genealogy of Christ by Matthew with the remark that Matthew traces the origin "per reges," Luke "per sacerdotes." The first book of the Commentary is chiefly devoted to Matthew, the second and third to Luke, the fourth to John. It concludes with an ingenious allegory representing Christ as a gardener (who appeared to Mary Magdalene, John 20:15), and the church as his garden full of rich flowers) as follows (see Zahn, p. 85): "Hortus Domini est ecclesia catholica, in qua sunt rosae martyrum, lilia virginum, violae viduarum, hedera coniugum; nam illa, quae aestimabat eum hortulanum esse significabat scilicet eum plantantem diversis virtutibus credentium vitam. Amen."

Dr. Zahn, in his recent monograph (1883), which abounds in rare patristic learning, vindicates this Commentary to Theophilus of Antioch and dates the translation from the third century. If so, we would have here a work of great apologetic as well as exegetical importance, especially for the history of the canon and the text; for Theophilus stood midway between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and would be the oldest Christian exegete. But a Nicene or post-Nicene development of theology and church organization is clearly indicated by the familiar use of such terms as regnum Christi catholicum, catholica doctrina, catholicum dogma, sacerdos, peccatum originale, monachi, saeculares, pagani. The suspicion of a later date is confirmed by the discovery of a MS. of this commentary in Brussels, with an anonymous preface which declares it to be a compilation. Harnack, who made this discovery, ably refutes the conclusions of Zahn, and tries to prove that the commentary ascribed to Theophilus is a Latin work by an anonymous author of the fifth or sixth century (470–520). Zahn (1884) defends in part his former position against Harnack, but admits the weight of the argument furnished by the Brussels MS. Hauck holds that the commentary was written after a.d. 200, but was used by Jerome. Bornemann successfully defends Harnack’s view against Zahn and Hauck, and puts the work between 450 and 700.

§ 177. Melito of Sardis.

(I.) Euseb. H. E. IV. 13, 26; V. 25. Hieron.: De Vir. ill. 24. The remains Of Melito in Routh, Reliq. acr. I. 113–153; more fully in Otto, Corp. Ap. IX. (1872), 375–478. His second Apology, of doubtful genuineness, in Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, Lond. 1835 (Syriac, with an English translation), and in Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. II. (with a Latin translation by Renan, which was revised by Otto, Corp. Ap. vol. IX.); German transl. by Welte in the Tüb." Theol. Quartalschrift" for 1862.

Piper in the Studien und Kritiken for 1838, p. 54 154. Uhlhorn in "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." 1866. Donaldson, III. 221–239 Steitz in Herzog² IX. 537–539. Lightfoot in "Contemp. Review," Febr. 1876. Harnack, Texte, etc., I. 240–278. Salmon in Smith and Wace III. 894–900. Renan, Marc-Auréle, 172 sqq. (Comp. also the short notice in L’église chrét., p. 436).

Melito, bishop of Sardis,(187) the capital of Lydia, was a shining light among the churches of Asia Minor in the third quarter of the second century. Polycrates of Ephesus, in his epistle to bishop Victor of Rome (d. 195), calls him a "eunuch who, in his whole conduct, was full of the Holy Ghost, and sleeps in Sardis awaiting the episcopate from heaven (or visitation, ,) on the day of the resurrection." The term "eunuch" no doubt refers to voluntary celibacy for the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:12)..(188) He was also esteemed as a prophet. He wrote a book on prophecy, probably against the pseudo-prophecy of the Montanists; but his relation to Montanism is not clear. He took an active part in the paschal and other controversies which agitated the churches of Asia Minor. He was among the chief supporters of the Quartadeciman practice which was afterwards condemned as schismatic and heretical. This may be a reason why his writings fell into oblivion. Otherwise he was quite orthodox according to the standard of his age, and a strong believer in the divinity of Christ, as is evident from one of the Syrian fragments (see below).

Melito was a man of brilliant mind and a most prolific author. Tertullian speaks of his elegant and eloquent genius.(189) Eusebius enumerates no less than eighteen or twenty works from his pen, covering a great variety of topics, but known to us now only by name.(190) He gives three valuable extracts. There must have been an uncommon literary fertility in Asia Minor after the middle of the second century.(191) The Apology of Melito was addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and written probably at the outbreak of the violent persecutions in 177, which, however, were of a local or provincial character, and not sanctioned by the general government. He remarks that Nero and Domitian were the only imperial persecutors, and expresses the hope that, Aurelius, if properly informed, would interfere in behalf of the innocent Christians. In a passage preserved in the "Paschal Chronicle" he says: "We are not worshipers of senseless stones, but adore one only God, who is before all and over all, and His Christ truly God the Word before all ages."

A Syriac Apology bearing his name(192) was discovered by Tattam, with other Syrian MSS. in the convents of the Nitrian desert (1843), and published by Cureton and Pitra (1855). But it contains none of the passages quoted by Eusebius, and is more an attack upon idolatry than a defense of Christianity, but may nevertheless be a work of Melito under an erroneous title.

To Melito we owe the first Christian list of the Hebrew Scriptures. It agrees with the Jewish and the Protestant canon, and omits the Apocrypha. The books of Esther and Nehemiah are also omitted, but may be included in Esdras. The expressions "the Old Books," "the Books of the Old Covenant," imply that the church at that time had a canon of the New Covenant. Melito made a visit to Palestine to seek information on the Jewish canon.

He wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse, and a "Key" ( ), probably to the Scriptures.(193)

The loss of this and of his books "on the Church" and "on the Lord’s Day" are perhaps to be regretted most.

Among the Syriac fragments of Melito published by Cureton is one from a work "On Faith," which contains a remarkable christological creed, an eloquent expansion of the Regula Fidei.(194) The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, Archangel among the angels; He piloted Noah, conducted Abraham, was bound with Isaac, exiled with Jacob, was Captain with Moses; He foretold his own sufferings in David and the prophets; He was incarnate in the Virgin; worshipped by the Magi; He healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, was rejected by the people, condemned by Pilate, hanged upon the tree, buried in the earth, rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles, ascended to heaven; He is the Rest of the departed, the Recoverer of the lost, the Light of the blind, the Refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the cherubim, the Captain of angels; God who is of God, the Son of the Father, the King for ever and ever.

§ 178. Apolinarius of Hierapolis. Miltiades.

Claudius Apolinarius,(195) bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a successor of Papias, was a very active apologetic and polemic writer about a.d. 160–180. He took a leading part in the Montanist and Paschal controversies. Eusebius puts him with Melito of Sardis among the orthodox writers of the second century, and mentions four of his "many works" as known to him, but since lost, namely an "Apology" addressed to Marcus Aurelius (before 174). "Five books against the Greeks" "Two books on Truth." "Two books against the Jews." He also notices his later books "Against the heresy of the Phrygians" (the Montanists), about 172.(196)

Apolinarius opposed the Quartodeciman observance of Easter, which Melito defended.(197) Jerome mentions his familiarity with heathen literature, but numbers him among the Chiliasts.(198) The latter is doubtful on account of his opposition to Montanism. Photius praises his style. He is enrolled among the saints.(199)

Miltiades was another Christian Apologist of the later half of the second century whose writings are entirely lost. Eusebius mentions among them an "Apology" addressed to the rulers of the world, a treatise "against the Greeks," and another "against the Jews;" but be gives no extracts.(200) Tertullian places him between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.(201)

§ 179. Hermias.

Ermeivou filosovfou Diasurmo;" tw'n e[xw filosovfwn, Hermiae Philosophi Gentilium Philosophorum Irrisio, ten chapters. Ed. princeps with Lat. vers. Base!, 1553, Zurich, 1560. Worth added it to his Tatian, Oxf. 1700. In Otto and Maranus (Migne, vi. Col. 1167–1180).

Donaldson, III. 179–181.

Under the name of the "philosopher" Hermias ( JErmeiva" or JErmiva") otherwise entirely unknown to us, we have a "Mockery of Heathen Philosophers," which, with the light arms of wit and sarcasm, endeavors to prove from the history of philosophy, by exposing the contradictions of the various systems, the truth of Paul’s declaration, that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. He derives the false philosophy from the demons. He first takes up the conflicting heathen notions about the soul, and then about the origin of the world, and ridicules them. The following is a specimen from the discussion of the first topic:

"I confess I am vexed by the reflux of things. For now I am immortal, and I rejoice; but now again I become mortal, and I weep; but straightway I am dissolved into atoms. I become water, and I become air: I become fire: then after a little I am neither air nor fire: one makes me a wild beast, one makes me a fish. Again, then, I have dolphins for my brothers. But when I see myself, I fear my body, and I no longer know how to call it, whether man, or dog, or wolf, or bull, or bird, or serpent, or dragon, or chimaera. I am changed by the philosophers into all the wild beasts, into those that live on land and on water, into those that are winged, many-shaped, wild, tame, speechless, and gifted with speech, rational and irrational. I swim, fly, creep, run, sit; and there is Empedocles too, who makes me a bush."

The work is small and unimportant.(202) Some put it down to the third or fourth century; but the writer calls himself a "philosopher" (though be misrepresents his profession), has in view a situation of the church like that under Marcus Aurelius, and presents many points of resemblance with the older Apologists and with Lucian who likewise ridiculed the philosophers with keen wit, but from the infidel heathen standpoint. Hence we may well assign him to the later part of the second century.

§ 180. Hegesippus.

(I.) Euseb. H. E. II. 23; III. 11, 16, 19, 20, 32; IV. 8, 22. Collection of fragments in Grabe, Spicil. II. 203–214; Routh, Reliq. S. I. 205–219; Hilgenfeld, in his "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theol." 1876 and 1878.

(II.) The Annotationes in Heges. Fragm. by Routh, I. 220–292 (very valuable). Donaldson: L. c. III. 182–213. Nösgen: Der Kirchl. Standpunkt des Heg. in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch." 1877 (p. 193–233). Against Hilgenfeld. Zahn: Der griech. Irenaeus und der ganze Hegesippus im 16^ten Jahr., ibid. p. 288–291. H. Dannreuther: Du Témoignage d’Hégésippe sur l’église chrétienne au deux premiers siècles. Nancy 1878. See also his art. in Lichtenberger’s "Encycl." vi. 126–129. Friedr. Vogel: De Hegesippo, qui dicitur, Josephi interprete. Erlangen 1881. W. Milligan: Hegesippus, in Smith and Wace II. (1880) 875–878. C. Weizsäcker: Hegesippus, in Herzog² V. 695–700. Caspari: Quellen, etc., III. 345–348.

The orthodoxy of Hegesippus has been denied by the Tübingen critics, Baur, Schwegler, and, more moderately by Hilgenfeld, but defended by Dorner, Donaldson, Nösgen, Weizsäcker, Caspari and Milligan.

Contemporary with the Apologists, though not of their class, were Hegesippus (d. about 180), and Dionysius of Corinth (about 170).

Hegesippus was an orthodox Jewish Christian(203) and lived during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius. He travelled extensively through Syria, Greece, and Italy, and was in Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. He collected "Memorials"(204) of the apostolic and post-apostolic churches. He used written sources and oral traditions. Unfortunately this work which still existed in the sixteenth century,(205) is lost, but may yet be recovered. It is usually regarded as a sort of church history, the first written after the Acts of St. Luke. This would make Hegesippus rather than Eusebius "the father of church history." But it seems to have been only a collection of reminiscences of travel without regard to chronological order (else the account of the martyrdom of James would have been put in the first instead of the fifth book.) He was an antiquarian rather than a historian. His chief object was to prove the purity and catholicity of the church against the Gnostic heretics and sects.

Eusebius has preserved his reports on the martyrdom of St. James the Just, Simeon of Jerusalem, Domitian’s inquiry for the descendants of David and the relatives of Jesus, the rise of heresies, the episcopal succession, and the preservation of the orthodox doctrine in Corinth and Rome. These scraps of history command attention for their antiquity; but they must be received with critical caution. They reveal a strongly Jewish type of piety, like that of James, but by no means Judaizing heresy. He was not an Ebionite, nor even a Nazarene, but decidedly catholic. There is no trace of his insisting on circumcision or the observance of the law as necessary to salvation. His use of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" implies no heretical bias. He derived all the heresies and schisms from Judaism. He laid great stress on the regular apostolic succession of bishops. In ever city he set himself to inquire for two things: purity of doctrine and the unbroken succession of teachers from the times of the apostles. The former depended in his view on the latter. The result of his investigation was satisfactory in both respects. He found in every apostolic church the faith maintained. "The church of Corinth," he says, "continued in the true faith, until Primus was bishop there [the predecessor of Dionysius], with whom I had familiar intercourse, as I passed many days at Corinth, when I was about sailing to Rome, during which time we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. After coming to Rome, I stayed with Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After Anicetus, Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In every succession, however, and in every city, the doctrine prevails according to what is announced by the law and the prophets and the Lord."(206) He gives an account of the heretical corruption which proceeded from the unbelieving Jews, from Thebuthis and Simon Magus and Cleobius and Dositheus, and other unknown or forgotten names, but "while the sacred choir of the apostles still lived, the church was undefiled and pure, like a virgin, until the age of Trajan, when those impious errors which had so long crept in darkness ventured forth without shame into open daylight."(207) He felt perfectly at home in the Catholic church of his day which had descended from, or rather never yet ascended the lofty mountain-height of apostolic knowledge and freedom. And as Hegesippus was satisfied with the orthodoxy of the Western churches, so Eusebius was satisfied with the orthodoxy of Hegesippus, and nowhere intimates a doubt.

§ 181. Dionysius of Corinth.

Euseb.: H. E. II. 25; III. 4; IV. 21, 23. Hieron.: De Vir. ill. 27.

Routh: Rel. S. I. 177–184 (the fragments), and 185–201 (the annotations). Includes Pinytus Cretensis and his Ep. ad Dion. (Eus. IV. 23).

Donaldson III. 214–220. Salmon in Smith and Wace II. 848 sq.

Dionysius was bishop of Corinth (probably the successor of Primus) in the third quarter of the second century, till about a.d. 170. He was a famous person in his day, distinguished for zeal, moderation, and a catholic and peaceful spirit. He wrote a number of pastoral letters to the congregations of Lacedaemon, Athens, Nicomedia, Rome, Gortyna in Crete, and other cities. One is addressed to Chrysophora, "a most faithful sister." They are all lost, with the exception of a summary of their contents given by Eusebius, and four fragments of the letter to Soter and the Roman church. They would no doubt shed much light on the spiritual life of the church. Eusebius says of him that he "imparted freely not only to his own people, but to others abroad also, the blessings of his divine (or inspired) industry."(208) His letters were read in the churches.

Such active correspondence promoted catholic unity and gave strength and comfort in persecution from without and heretical corruption within. The bishop is usually mentioned with honor, but the letters are addressed to the church; and even the Roman bishop Soter, like his predecessor Clement, addressed his own letter in the name of the Roman church to the church of Corinth. Dionysius writes to the Roman Christians: "To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle.(209) In reading it we shall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall also from that written to us before by Clement." He speaks very highly of the liberality of the church of Rome in aiding foreign brethren condemned to the mines, and sending contributions to every city.

Dionysius is honored as a martyr in the Greek, as a confessor in the Latin church.

§ 182. Irenaeus

Editions of his Works.

S. Irenaei Episcopi Lugdun. Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. A. Stieren. Lips. 1853, 2 vols. The second volume contains the Prolegomena of older editors, and the disputations of Maffei and Pfaff on the Fragments of Irenaeus. It really supersedes all older ed., but not the later one of Harvey.

S. Irenaei libros quinque adversus Haereses edidit W. Wigan Harvey. Cambr. 1857, in 2 vols. Based upon a new and careful collation of the Cod. Claromontanus and Arundel, and embodying the original Greek portions preserved in the Philosoph. of Hippolytus, the newly discovered Syriac and Armenian fragments, and learned Prolegomena.

Older editions by Erasmus, Basel 1526 (from three Latin MSS. since lost, repeated 1528, 1534); Gallasius, Gen. 1570 (with the use of the Gr. text in Epiphan.); Grynaeus, Bas. 1571 (worthless); Fevardentius (Feuardent), Paris 1575, improved ed. Col. 1596, and often; Grabe, Oxf. 1702; and above all Massuet, Par. 1710, Ven. 1734, 2 vols. fol., and again in Migne’s "Patrol. Graeco-Lat." , Tom. VII. Par. 1857 (the Bened. ed., the best of the older, based on three MSS., with ample Proleg. and 3 Dissertations).

English translation by A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, 2 vols., in the "Ante-Nicene Library," Edinb. 1868. Another by John Keble, ed. by Dr. Pusey, for the Oxford "Library of the Fathers," 1872.

Biographical and Critical.

Ren. Massuet (R.C.): Dissertationes in Irenaei libros (de hereticis, de Irenaei vita, gestis et scriptis, de Ir. doctrina) prefixed to his edition of the Opera, and reprinted in Stieren and Migne. Also the Proleg. of Harvey, on Gnosticism, and the Life and Writings of Iren.

H. Dodwell: Dissert. in Iren. Oxon. 1689.

Tillemont: Mêmoirs, etc. III. 77–99.

Deyling: Irenaeus, evangelicae veritatis confessor ac testis. Lips. 1721. (Against Massuet.)

Stieren: Art. Irenaeus in "Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl." IInd sect. Vol. xxiii. 357–386.

J. Beaven: Life and Writings of Irenaeus. Lond. 1841.

J. M. Prat (R.C.): Histoire de St. Irenée. Lyon and Paris 1843.

L. Duncker: Des heil. Irenaeus Christologie. Gött. 1843. Very, valuable.

K. Graul: Die Christliche Kirche an der Schwelle des Irenaeischen Zeitalters. Leipz. 1860. (168 pages.) Introduction to a biography which never appeared.

Ch. E. Freppel (bishop of Angers, since 1869): Saint Irénée et l’éloquence chrétienne dans la Gaule aux deux premiers siècles. Par. 1861.

G. Schneemann: Sancti Irenaei de ecclesiae Romanae principatu testimonium. Freib. i. Br. 1870.

Böhringer: Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, vol. II. new ed. 1873.

Heinrich Ziegler: Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon. Berlin 1871. (320 p.)

R. A. Lipsius: Die Zeit des lrenaeus von Lyon und die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, in Sybel’s "Histor. Zeitschrift." München 1872, p. 241 sqq. See his later art. below.

A. Guilloud: St. Irenée et son temps. Lyon 1876.

Bp. Lightfoot: The Churches of Gaul, in the "Contemporary Review" for Aug. 1876.

C. J. H. Ropes: Irenaeus of Lyons, in the Andover "Bibliotheca Sacra" for April 1877, p. 284–334. A learned discussion of the nationality of Irenaeus (against Harvey).

J. Quarry: Irenaeus; his testimony to early Conceptions of Christianity. In the "British Quarterly Review" for 1879, July and Oct.

Renan: Marc Aurèle. Paris 1882, p. 336–344.

TH. Zahn: art. Iren. in HerZog², VII. 129–140 (abridged in Schaff-Herzog), chiefly chronological; and R. A. Lipsius in Smith and Wace III. 253–279. Both these articles are very important; that of Lipsius is fuller.

Comp. also the Ch. Hist. of Neander, and Baur, and the Patrol. of Möhler, and Alzog.

Special doctrines and relations of Irenaeus have been discussed by Baur, Dorner, Thiersch, Höfling, Hopfenmiller, Körber, Ritschl, Kirchner, Zahn, Harnack, Leimbach, Reville, Hackenschmidt. See the Lit. in Zahn’s art. in Herzog².

A full and satisfactory monograph of Irenaeus and his age is still a desideratum.

Almost simultaneously with the apology against false religions without arose the polemic literature against the heresies, or various forms of pseudo-Christianity, especially the Gnostic; and upon this was formed the dogmatic theology of the church. At the head of the old catholic controversialists stand Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus, both of Greek education, but both belonging, in their ecclesiastical relations and labors, to the West.

Asia Minor, the scene of the last labors of St. John, produced a luminous succession of divines and confessors who in the first three quarters of the second century reflected the light of the setting sun of the apostolic age, and may be called the pupils of St. John. Among them were Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, Melito of Sardis, and others less known but honorably mentioned in the letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to bishop Victor of Rome (A. D. 190).

The last and greatest representative of this school is Irenaeus, the first among the fathers properly so called, and one of the chief architects of the Catholic system of doctrine.

I. Life and Character. Little is known of Irenaeus except what we may infer from his writings. He sprang from Asia Minor, probably from Smyrna, where he spent his youth.(210) He was born between a.d. 115 and 125..(211) He enjoyed the instruction of the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna, the pupil of John, and of other "Elders," who were mediate or immediate disciples of the apostles. The spirit of his preceptor passed over to him. "What I heard from him" says he, "that wrote I not on paper, but in my heart, and by the grace of God I constantly bring it afresh to mind." Perhaps he also accompanied Polycarp on his journey to Rome in connexion with the Easter controversy (154). He went as a missionary to Southern Gaul which seems to have derived her Christianity from Asia Minor. During the persecution in Lugdunum and Vienne under Marcus Aurelius (177), he was a presbyter there and witnessed the horrible cruelties which the infuriated heathen populace practiced upon his brethren.(212) The aged and venerable bishop, Pothinus, fell a victim, and the presbyter took the post of danger, but was spared for important work.

He was sent by the Gallican confessors to the Roman bishop Eleutherus (who ruled a.d. 177–190), as a mediator in the Montanistic disputes.(213)

After the martyrdom of Pothinus he was elected bishop of Lyons (178), and labored there with zeal and success, by tongue and pen, for the restoration of the heavily visited church, for the spread of Christianity in Gaul, and for the defence and development of its doctrines. He thus combined a vast missionary and literary activity. If we are to trust the account of Gregory of Tours, he converted almost the whole population of Lyons and sent notable missionaries to other parts of pagan France.

After the year 190 we lose sight of Irenaeus. Jerome speaks of him as having flourished in the reign of Commodus, i.e., between 180 and 192. He is reported by later tradition (since the fourth or fifth century) to have died a martyr in the persecution under Septimus Severus, a.d. 202, but the silence of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius makes this point extremely doubtful. He was buried under the altar of the church of St. John in Lyons.(214) This city became again famous in church history in the twelfth century as the birthplace of the Waldensian martyr church, the Pauperes de Lugduno.

His Character and Position. Irenaeus is the leading representative of catholic Christianity in the last quarter of the second century, the champion of orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches. He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wisdom and moderation. He is neither very original nor brilliant, but eminently sound and judicious. His individuality is not strongly marked, but almost lost in his catholicity. He modestly disclaims elegance and eloquence, and says that he had to struggle in his daily administrations with the barbarous Celtic dialect of Southern Gaul; but he nevertheless handles the Greek with great skill on the most abstruse subjects.(215) He is familiar with Greek poets (Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles) and philosophers (Thales, Pythagoras, Plato), whom he occasionally cites. He is perfectly at home in the Greek Bible and in the early Christian writers, as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Hermas, Justin M., and Tatian.(216) His position gives him additional weight, for he is linked by two long lives, that of his teacher and grand-teacher, to the fountain head of Christianity. We plainly trace in him the influence of the spirit of Polycarp and John. "The true way to God," says he, in opposition to the false Gnosis, "is love. It is better to be willing to know nothing but Jesus Christ the crucified, than to fall into ungodliness through over-curious questions and paltry subtleties." We may trace in him also the strong influence of the anthropology and soteriology of Paul. But he makes more account than either John or Paul of the outward visible church, the episcopal succession, and the sacraments; and his whole conception of Christianity is predominantly legalistic. Herein we see the catholic churchliness which so strongly set in during the second century.

Irenaeus is an enemy of all error and schism, and, on the whole, the most orthodox of the ante-Nicene fathers.(217) We must, however, except his eschatology. Here, with Papias and most of his contemporaries, be maintains the pre-millennarian views which were subsequently abandoned as Jewish dreams by the catholic church. While laboring hard for the spread and defense of the church on earth, he is still "gazing up into heaven," like the men of Galilee, anxiously waiting for the return of the Lord and the establishment of his kingdom. He is also strangely mistaken about the age of Jesus from a false inference of the question of the Jews, John 8:57.

Irenaeus is the first among patristic writers who makes full use of the New Testament. The Apostolic Fathers reëcho the oral traditions; the Apologists are content with quoting the Old Testament prophets and the Lord’s own words in the Gospels as proof of divine revelation; but Irenaeus showed the unity of the Old and New Testaments in opposition to the Gnostic separation, and made use of the four Gospels and nearly all Epistles in opposition to the mutilated canon of Marcion.(218)

With all his zeal for pure and sound doctrine, Irenaeus was liberal towards subordinate differences, and remonstrated with the bishop of Rome for his unapostolic efforts to force an outward uniformity in respect to the time and manner of celebrating Easter.(219) We may almost call him a forerunner of Gallicanism in its protest against ultramontane despotism. "The apostles have ordained," says he in the third fragment, which appears to refer to that controversy, "that we make conscience with no one of food and drink, or of particular feasts, new moons, and sabbaths. Whence, then, controversies; whence schisms? We keep feasts but with the leaven of wickedness and deceit, rending asunder the church of God, and we observe the outward, to the neglect of the higher, faith and love." He showed the same moderation in the Montanistic troubles. He was true to his name Peaceful ( Gr. ) and to his spiritual ancestry.

His Writings. (1.) The most important work of Irenaeus is his Refutation of Gnosticism, in five books.(220) It was composed during the pontificate of Eleutherus, that is between the years 177 and 190.(221) It is at once the polemic theological masterpiece of the ante-Nicene age, and the richest mine of information respecting Gnosticism and the church doctrine of that age. It contains a complete system of Christian divinity, but enveloped in polemical smoke, which makes it very difficult and tedious reading. The work was written at the request of a friend who wished to be informed of the Valentinian heresy and to be furnished with arguments against it. Valentinus and Marcion had taught in Rome about a.d. 140, and their doctrines had spread to the south of France. The first book contains a minute exposition of the gorgeous speculations of Valentinus and a general view of the other Gnostic sects; the second an exposure of the unreasonableness and contradictions of these heresies; especially the notions of the Demiurge as distinct from the Creator, of the Aeons, the Pleroma and Kenoma, the emanations, the fall of Achamoth, the formation of the lower world of matter, the sufferings of the Sophia, the difference between the three classes of men, the Somatici, Psychici, and Pneumatici. The last three books refute Gnosticism from the Holy Scripture and Christian tradition which teach the same thing; for the same gospel which was first orally preached and transmitted was subsequently committed to writing and faithfully preserved in all the apostolic churches through the regular succession of the bishops and elders; and this apostolic tradition insures at the same time the correct interpretation of Scripture against heretical perversion. To the ever-shifting and contradictory opinions of the heretics Irenaeus opposes the unchanging faith of the catholic church which is based on the Scriptures and tradition, and compacted together by the episcopal organization. It is the same argument which Bellarmin, Bossuet, and Möhler use against divided and distracted Protestantism, but Protestantism differs as much from old Gnosticism as the New Testament from the apocryphal Gospels, and as sound, sober, practical sense differs from mystical and transcendental nonsense. The fifth book dwells on the resurrection of the body and the millennial kingdom. Irenaeus derived his information from the writings of Valentinus and Marcion and their disciples, and from Justin Martyr’s Syntagma.(222)

The interpretation of Scripture is generally sound and sober, and contrasts favorably with the fantastic distortions of the Gnostics. He had a glimpse of a theory of inspiration which does justice to the human factor. He attributes the irregularities of Paul’s style to his rapidity of discourse and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him.(223)

(2.) The Epistle to Florinus, of which Eusebius has preserved an interesting and important fragment, treated On the Unity of God, and the Origin of Evil.(224) It was written probably after the work against heresies, and as late as 190.(225) Florinus was an older friend and fellow-student of lrenaeus and for some time presbyter in the church of Rome, but was deposed on account of his apostasy to the Gnostic heresy. Irenaeus reminded him very touchingly of their common studies at the feet of the patriarchal Polycarp, when he held some position at the royal court (probably during Hadrian’s sojourn at Smyrna), and tried to bring him back to the faith of his youth, but we do not know with what effect.

(3.) On the Ogdoad(226) against the Valentinian system of Aeons, in which the number eight figures prominently with a mystic meaning. Eusebius says that it was written on account of Florinus, and that he found in it "a most delightful remark," as follows: "I adjure thee, whoever thou art, that transcribest this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by his gracious appearance, when he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, to compare what thou hast copied, and to correct it by this original manuscript, from which thou hast carefully transcribed. And that thou also copy this adjuration, and insert it in the copy." The carelessness of transcribers in those days is the chief cause of the variations in the text of the Greek Testament which abounded already in the second century. Irenaeus himself mentions a remarkable difference of reading in the mystic number of Antichrist (666 and 616), on which the historic interpretation of the book depends (Rev. 13:18).

(4.) A book On Schism, addressed to Blastus who was the head of the Roman Montanists and also a Quartodeciman.(227) It referred probably to the Montanist troubles in a conciliatory spirit.

(5.) Eusebius mentions(228) several. other treatises which are entirely lost, as Against the Greeks (or On Knowledge), On Apostolic Preaching, a Book on Various Disputes,(229) and on the Wisdom of Solomon. In the Syriac fragments some other lost works are mentioned.

(6.) Irenaeus is probably the author of that touching account of the persecution of 177, which the churches of Lyons and Vienne sent to the churches in Asia Minor and Phrygia, and which Eusebius has in great part preserved. He was an eyewitness of the cruel scene, yet his name is not mentioned, which would well agree with his modesty; the document breathes his mild Christian spirit, reveals his aversion to Gnosticism, his indulgence for Montanism, his expectation of the near approach of Antichrist. It is certainly one of the purest and most precious remains of ante-Nicene literature and fully equal, yea superior to the "Martyrdom of Polycarp," because free from superstitious relic-worship.(230)

(7.) Finally, we must mention four more Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which Pfaff discovered at Turin in 1715, and first published. Their genuineness has been called in question by some Roman divines, chiefly for doctrinal reasons.(231) The first treats of the true knowledge,(232) which consists not in the solution of subtle questions, but in divine wisdom and the imitation of Christ; the second is on the eucharist;(233) the third, on the duty of toleration in subordinate points of difference, with reference to the Paschal controversies;(234) the fourth, on the object of the incarnation, which is stated to be the purging away of sin and the annihilation of all evil.(235)

§ 183. Hippolytus.

(I.) S. Hippolyti episcopi et martyris Opera, Graece et Lat. ed. J. Afabricius, Hamb. 1716–18, 2 vols. fol.; ed. Gallandi in "Biblioth. Patrum," Ven. 1760, Vol. II.; Migne: Patr. Gr., vol. x. Col. 583–982. P. Ant. de Lagarde: Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece, Lips. et Lond. 1858 (216 pages). Lagarde has also published some Syriac and Arabic fragments, of Hippol., in his Analecta Syriaca (p. 79–91) and Appendix, Leipz. and Lond. 1858.

Patristic notices of Hippolytus. Euseb.: H. E. VI. 20, 22; Prudentius in the 11th of his Martyr Hymns (pervi; stefavnwn) Hieron De Vir. ill. c. 61; Photius, Cod. 48 and 121. Epiphanius barely mentions Hippol. (Haer. 31). Theodoret quotes several passages and calls him "holy Hippol. bishop and martyr" (Haer. Fab. III. 1 and Dial. I., II. and III.). See Fabricius, Hippol. I. VIII.-XX.

S. Hippolyti EpIs. et Mart. Refutationis omnium haeresium librorum decem quae supersunt, ed. Duncker et Schneidewin. Gött. 1859. The first ed. appeared under the name of Origen: jWrigevnou" filosofuvmena h} kata; pasw'n aiJrevewn e[legco". Origenis Philosophumena, sive omnium haeresium refutatio. E codice Parisino ninc primum ed. Emmanuel Miller. Oxon. (Clarendon Press), 1851. Another ed. by Abbe Cruice, Par. 1860. An English translation by J. H. Macmahon, in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library, " Edinb. 1868.

A MS. of this important work from the 14th century was discovered at, Mt. Athos in Greece in 1842, by a learned Greek, Minoïdes Mynas (who had been sent by M. Villemain, minister of public instruction under Louis Philippe, to Greece in search of MSS.), and deposited in the national library at Paris. The first book had been long known among the works of Origen, but had justly been already denied to him by Huet and De la Rue; the second and third, and beginning of the fourth, are still wanting; the tenth lacks the conclusion. This work is now universally ascribed to Hippolytus.

Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice e codicibus Romanis cum versione Latina, ed. D. B. de Haneberg. Monach. 1870. The canons are very rigoristic, but "certain evidence as to their authorship is wanting."

O. Bardenhewer: Des heil. Hippolyt von Rom. Commentar zum B. Daniel. Freib. i. B. 1877,

(II.) E. F. Kimmel: De Hippolyti vita et scriptis. Jen. 1839. Möhler: Patrol. p. 584 sqq. Both are confined to the older confused sources of information.

Since the discovery of the Philosophumena the following books and tracts on Hippolytus have appeared, which present him under a new light.

Bunsen: Hippolytus and his Age. Lond. 1852. 4 vols. (German in 2 vols. Leipz. 1855); 2d ed. with much irrelevant and heterogeneous matter (under the title: Christianity and Mankind). Lond. 1854. 7 vols.

Jacobi in the "Deutsche Zeitschrift," Berl. 1851 and ’53; and Art." Hippolytus" in Herzog’s Encykl. VI. 131 sqq. (1856), and in Herzog² VI. 139–149.

Baur, in the "Theol. Jahrb." Tüb. 1853. Volkmar and Ritschl, ibid. 1854,

Gieseler, in the "Stud. u. Krit." for 1853.

Döllinger (R. Cath., but since 1870 an Old Cath.): Hippolytus und Callistus, oder die röm. Kirche in der ersten Haelfte des dritten Jahrh. Regensburg 1853. English translation by Alfred Plummer, Edinb. 1876 (360 pages). The most learned book on the subject. An apology for Callistus and the Roman see, against Hippolytus the supposed first anti-Pope.

Chr. Wordsworth (Anglican): St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century. London 1853. Second and greatly enlarged edition, 1880. With the Greek text and an English version of the 9th and 10th books. The counter-part of Döllinger. An apology for Hippolytus against Callistus and the papacy.

L’abbé Cruice (chanoine hon. de Paris): Etudes sur de nouv. doc. hist. des Philosophumena. Paris 1853 (380 p.)

W. Elfe Tayler: Hippol. and the Christ. Ch. of the third century. Lond. 1853. (245 p.)

Le Normant: Controverse sur les Philos. d’ Orig. Paris 1853. In "Le Correspondant," Tom. 31 p. 509–550. For Origen as author.

G. Volkmar: Hippolytus und die röm. Zeitgenossen. Zürich 1855. (174 pages.)

Caspari: Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania, vol. III. 349 sqq. and 374–409. On the writings of H.

Lipsius: Quellen der ältesten Ketzergesch. Leipzig 1875.

De Smedt (R.C.): De Auctore Philosophumenon. In "Dissertationes Selectae." Ghent, 1876.

G. Salmon: Hipp. Romanus in Smith and Wace III. 85–105 (very good.)

I. Life Of Hippolytus. This famous person has lived three lives, a real one in the third century as an opponent of the popes of his day, a fictitious one in the middle ages as a canonized saint, and a literary one in the nineteenth century after the discovery of his long lost works against heresies. He was undoubtedly one of the most learned and eminent scholars and theologians of his time. The Roman church placed him in the number of her saints and martyrs, little suspecting that he would come forward in the nineteenth century as an accuser against her. But the statements of the ancients respecting him are very obscure and confused. Certain it is, that he received a thorough Grecian education, and, as he himself says, in a fragment preserved by Photius, heard the discourses of Irenaeus (in Lyons or in Rome). His public life falls in the end of the second century and the first three decennaries of the third (about 198 to 236), and he belongs to the western church, though he may have been, like Irenaeus, of Oriental extraction. At all events he wrote all his books in Greek.(236)

Eusebius is the first who mentions him, and he calls him indefinitely, bishop, and a contemporary of Origen and Beryl of Bostra; he evidently did not know where he was bishop, but he gives a list of his works which he saw (probably in the library of Caesarea). Jerome gives a more complete list of his writings, but no more definite information as to his see, although he was well acquainted with Rome and Pope Damasus. He calls him martyr, and couples him with the Roman senator Apollonius. An old catalogue of the popes, the Catalogus Liberianus (about a.d. 354), states that a "presbyter" Hippolytus was banished, together with the Roman bishop Pontianus, about 235, to the unhealthy island of Sardinia, and that the bodies of both were deposited on the same day (Aug. 13), Pontianus in the cemetery of Callistus, Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina (where his statue was discovered in 1551). The translation of Pontianus was effected by Pope Fabianus about 236 or 237. From this statement we would infer that Hippolytus died in the mines of Sardinia and was thus counted a martyr, like all those confessors who died in prison. He may, however, have returned and suffered martyrdom elsewhere. The next account we have is from the Spanish poet Prudentius who wrote in the beginning of the fifth century. He represents Hippolytus in poetic description as a Roman presbyter (therein agreeing with the Liberian Catalogue) who belonged to the Novatian party(237)(which, however, arose several years after the death of Hippolytus), but in the prospect of death regretted the schism exhorted his numerous followers to return into the bosom of the catholic church, and then, in bitter allusion to his name and to the mythical Hippolytus, the son of Theseus, was bound by the feet to a team of wild horses and dragged to death over stock and stone. He puts into his mouth his last words: "These steeds drag my limbs after them; drag Thou, O Christ, my soul to Thyself."(238) He places the scene of his martyrdom at Ostia or Portus where the Prefect of Rome happened to be at that time who condemned him for his Christian profession. Prudentius also saw the subterranean grave-chapel in Rome and a picture which represented his martyrdom (perhaps intended originally for the mythological Hippolytus).(239) But as no such church is found in the early lists of Roman churches, it may have been the church of St. Lawrence, the famous gridiron-martyr, which adjoined the tomb of Hippolytus. Notwithstanding the chronological error about the Novatian schism and the extreme improbability of such a horrible death under Roman laws and customs, there is an important element of truth in this legend, namely the schismatic position of Hippolytus which suits the Philosophumena, perhaps also his connection with Portus. The later tradition of the catholic church (from the middle of the seventh century) makes him bishop of Portus Romanus (now Porto) which lies at the Northern mouth of the Tiber, opposite Ostia, about fifteen miles from Rome.(240) The Greek writers, not strictly distinguishing the city from the surrounding country, call him usually bishop of Rome.(241)

These are the vague and conflicting traditions, amounting to this that Hippolytus was an eminent presbyter or bishop in Rome or the vicinity, in the early part of the third century, that he wrote many learned works and died a martyr in Sardinia or Ostia. So the matter stood when a discovery in the sixteenth century shed new light on this mysterious person.

In the year 1551, a much mutilated marble statue, now in the Lateran Museum, was exhumed at Rome near the basilica of St. Lawrence on the Via Tiburtina (the road to Tivoli). This statue is not mentioned indeed by Prudentius, and was perhaps originally designed for an entirely different purpose, possibly for a Roman senator; but it is at all events very ancient, probably from the middle of the third century.(242) It represents a venerable man clothed with the Greek pallium and Roman toga, seated in a bishop’s chair. On the back of the cathedra are engraved in uncial letters the paschal cycle, or easter-table of Hippolytus for seven series of sixteen years, beginning with the first year of Alexander Severus (222), and a list of writings, presumably written by the person whom the statue represents. Among these writings is named a work On the All, which is mentioned in the tenth book of the Philosophumena as a product of the writer.(243) This furnishes the key to the authorship of that important work.

Much more important is the recent discovery and publication (in 1851) of one of his works themselves, and that no doubt the most valuable of them all, viz. the Philosophumena, or Refutation of all Heresies. It is now almost universally acknowledged that this work comes not from Origen, who never was a bishop, nor from the antimontanistic and antichiliastic presbyter Caius, but from Hippolytus; because, among other reasons, the author, in accordance with the Hippolytus-statue, himself refers to a work On the All, as his own, and because Hippolytus is declared by the fathers to have written a work Adversus omnes Haereses.(244) The entire matter of the work, too, agrees with the scattered statements of antiquity respecting his ecclesiastical position; and at the same time places that position in a much clearer light, and gives us a better understanding of those statements.(245) The author of the Philosophumena appears as one of the most prominent of the clergy in or near Rome in the beginning of the third century; probably a bishop, since he reckons himself among the successors of the apostles and the guardians of the doctrine of the church. He took an active part in all the doctrinal and ritual controversies of his time, but severely opposed the Roman bishops Zephyrinus (202–218) and Callistus (218–223), on account of their Patripassian leanings, and their loose penitential discipline. The latter especially, who had given public offence by his former mode of life, he attacked without mercy and not without passion. He was, therefore, if not exactly a schismatical counter-pope (as Döllinger supposes), yet the head of a disaffected and schismatic party, orthodox in doctrine, rigoristic in discipline, and thus very nearly allied to the Montanists before him, and to the later schism of Novatian. It is for this reason the more remarkable, that we have no account respecting the subsequent course of this movement, except the later unreliable tradition, that Hippolytus finally returned into the bosom of the catholic church, and expiated his schism by martyrdom, either in the mines of Sardinia or near Rome (A. D. 235, or rather 236, under the persecuting emperor Maximinus the Thracian).

His Writings. Hippolytus was the most learned divine and the most voluminous writer of the Roman church in the third century; in fact the first great scholar of that church, though like his teacher, Irenaeus, he used the Greek language exclusively. This fact, together with his polemic attitude to the Roman bishops of his day, accounts for the early disappearance of his works from the remembrance of that church. He is not so much an original, productive author, as a learned and skilful compiler. In the philosophical parts of his Philosophumena he borrows largely from Sextus Empiricus, word for word, without acknowledgment; and in the theological part from Irenaeus. In doctrine he agrees, for the most part, with Irenaeus, even to his chiliasm, but is not his equal in discernment, depth, and moderation. He repudiates philosophy, almost with Tertullian’s vehemence, as the source of all heresies; yet he employs it to establish his own views. On the subject of the trinity he assails Monarchianism, and advocates the hypostasian theory with a zeal which brought down upon him the charge of ditheism. His disciplinary principles are rigoristic and ascetic. In this respect also he is akin to Tertullian, though he places the Montanists, like the Quartodecimanians, but with only a brief notice, among the heretics. His style is vigorous, but careless and turgid. Caspari calls Hippolytus "the Roman Origen." This is true as regards learning and independence, but Origen had more genius and moderation.

The principal work of Hippolytus is the Philosophumena or Refutation of all Heresies. It is, next to the treatise of Irenaeus, the most instructive and important polemical production of the ante-Nicene church, and sheds much new light, not only upon the ancient heresies, and the development of the church doctrine, but also upon the history of philosophy and the condition of the Roman church in the beginning of the third century. It furthermore affords valuable testimony to the genuineness of the Gospel of John, both from the mouth of the author himself, and through his quotations from the much earlier Gnostic Basilides, who was a later contemporary of John (about a.d. 125). The composition falls some years after the death of Callistus, between the years 223 and 235. The first of the ten books gives an outline of the heathen philosophies which he regards as the sources of all heresies; hence the title Philosophumena which answers the first four books, but not the last six. It is not in the Athos-MS., but was formerly known and incorporated in the works of Origen. The second and third books, which are wanting, treated probably of the heathen mysteries, and mathematical and astrological theories. The fourth is occupied likewise with the heathen astrology and magic, which must have exercised great influence, particularly in Rome. In the fifth book the author comes to his proper theme, the refutation of all the heresies from the times of the apostles to his own. He takes up thirty-two in all, most of which, however, are merely different branches of Gnosticism and Ebionism. He simply states the heretical opinions from lost writings, without introducing his own reflection, and refers them to the Greek philosophy, mysticism, and magic, thinking them sufficiently refuted by being traced to those heathen sources. The ninth book, in refuting the doctrine of the Noëtians and Callistians, makes remarkable disclosures of events in the Roman church. He represents Pope Zephyrinus as a weak and ignorant man who gave aid and comfort to the Patripassian heresy, and his successor Callistus, as a shrewd and cunning manager who was once a slave, then a dishonest banker, and became a bankrupt and convict, but worked himself into the good graces of Zephyrinus and after his death obtained the object of his ambition, the papal chair, taught heresy and ruined the discipline by extreme leniency to offenders. Here the author shows himself a violent partizan, and must be used with caution.

The tenth book, made use of by Theodoret, contains a brief recapitulation and the author’s own confession of faith, as a positive refutation of the heresies. The following is the most important part relating to Christ:

"This Word (Logos) the Father sent forth in these last days no longer to speak by a prophet, nor willing that He should be only guessed at from obscure preaching, but bidding Him be manifested face to face, in order that the world should reverence Him when it beheld Him, not giving His commands in the person of a prophet, nor alarming the soul by an angel, but Himself present who had spoken.

"Him we know to have received a body from the Virgin and to have refashioned the old man by a new creation, and to have passed in His life through every age, in order that He might be a law to every age, and by His presence exhibit His own humanity as a pattern to all men,(246) and thus convince man that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses free will, having in himself the power of volition or non-volition, and being able to do both. Him we know to have been a man of the same nature with ourselves.

"For, if He were not of the same nature, He would in vain exhort us to imitate our Master. For if that man was of another nature, why does He enjoin the same duties on me who am weak? And how can He be good and just? But that He might be shown to be the same as we, He underwent toil and consented to suffer hunger and thirst, and rested in sleep, and did not refuse His passion, and became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection, having consecrated in all these things His own humanity, as first fruits, in order that thou when suffering mayest not despair, acknowledging thyself a man of like nature and waiting for the appearance of what thou gavest to Him.(247)

"Such is the true doctrine concerning the Deity, O ye Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldaeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Africans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye warlike Latins, and all ye inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and Africa, whom I exhort, being a disciple of the man-loving Word and myself a lover of men ( ). Come ye and learn from us, who is the true God, and what is His well-ordered workmanship, not heeding the sophistry of artificial speeches, nor the vain professions of plagiarist heretics, but the grave simplicity of unadorned truth. By this knowledge ye will escape the coming curse of the judgment of fire, and the dark rayless aspect of Tartarus, never illuminated by the voice of the Word ....

Therefore, O men, persist not in your enmity, nor hesitate to retrace your steps. For Christ is the God who is over all ( ,comp. Rom. 9:5), who commanded men to wash away sin [in baptism],(248) regenerating the old man, having called him His image from the beginning, showing by a figure His love to thee. If thou obeyest His holy commandment and becomest an imitator in goodness of Him who is good, thou wilt become like Him, being honored by Him. For God has a need and craving for thee, having made thee divine for His glory."

Hippolytus wrote a large number of other works, exegetical, chronological, polemical, and homiletical, all in Greek, which are mostly lost, although considerable fragments remain. He prepared the first continuous and detailed commentaries on several books of the Scriptures, as the Hexaëmeron (used by Ambrose), on Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the larger prophets (especially Daniel), Zechariah, also on Matthew, Luke, and the Apocalypse. He pursued in exegesis the allegorical method, like Origen, which suited the taste of his age.

Among, his polemical works was one Against Thirty-two Heresies, different from the Philosophumena, and described by Photius as a "little book,"(249) and as a synopsis of lectures which Hippolytus heard from Irenaeus. It must have been written in his early youth. It began with the heresy of Dositheus and ended with that of Noëtus.(250) His treatise Against Noëtus which is still preserved, presupposes previous sections, and formed probably the concluding part of that synopsis.(251) If not, it must have been the conclusion of a special work against the Monarchian heretics,(252) but no such work is mentioned.

The book On the Universe(253) was directed against Platonism. It made all things consist of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Man is formed of all four elements, his soul, of air. But the most important part of this book is a description of Hades, as an abode under ground where the souls of the departed are detained until the day of judgment: the righteous in a place of light and happiness called Abraham’s Bosom; the wicked in a place of darkness and misery; the two regions being separated by a great gulf. The entrance is guarded by an archangel. On the judgment day the bodies of the righteous will rise renewed and glorified, the bodies of the wicked with all the diseases of their earthly life for everlasting punishment. This description agrees substantially with the eschatology of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.(254)

The anonymous work called The Little Labyrinth,(255) mentioned by Eusebius and Theodoret as directed against the rationalistic heresy of Artemon, is ascribed by some to Hippolytus, by others to Caius. But The Labyrinth mentioned by Photius as a work of Caius is different and identical with the tenth book of the Philosophumena, which begins with the words, "The labyrinth of heresies."(256)

The lost tract on the Charismata(257) dealt probably with the Montanistic claims to continued prophecy. Others make it a collection of apostolical canons.

The book on Antichrist(258) which has been almost entirely recovered by Gudius, represents Antichrist as the complete counterfeit of Christ, explains Daniel’s four kingdoms as the Babylonian, Median, Grecian, and Roman, and the apocalyptic number of the beast as meaning , i.e., heathen Rome. This is one of the three interpretations given by Irenaeus who, however, preferred Teitan.

In a commentary on the Apocalypse(259) he gives another interpretation of the number, namely Dantialos (probably because Antichrist was to descend from the tribe of Dan). The woman in the twelfth chapter is the church; the sun with which she is clothed, is our Lord; the moon, John the Baptist; the twelve stars, the twelve apostles; the two wings on which she was to fly, hope and love. Armageddon is the valley of Jehoshaphat. The five kings (17:13) are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander, and his four successors; the sixth is the Roman empire, the seventh will be Antichrist. In his commentary on Daniel he fixes the consummation at a.d. 500, or A. M. 6000, on the assumption that Christ appeared in the year of the world 5500, and that a sixth millennium must yet be completed before the beginning of the millennial Sabbath, which is prefigured by the divine rest after creation. This view, in connection with his relation to Irenaeus, and the omission of chiliasm from his list of heresies, makes it tolerably certain that be was himself a chiliast, although he put off the millennium to the sixth century after Christ.(260)

We conclude this section with an account of a visit of Pope Alexander III. to the shrine of St. Hippolytus in the church of St. Denis in 1159, to which his bones were transferred from Rome under Charlemagne.(261) "On the threshold of one of the chapels the Pope paused to ask, whose relics it contained. ’Those of St. Hippolytus,’ was the answer. ’Non credo, non credo,’ replied the infallible authority, ’the bones of St. Hippolytus were never removed from the holy city.’ But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones apparently had as little reverence for the spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus as the ancient bishop’s tongue and pen had manifested towards these saints themselves, was so very angry that be rumbled his bones inside the reliquary with a noise like thunder. To what lengths he might have gone if rattling had not sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the Pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, I believe, O my Lord Hippolytus, I believe, pray be quiet.’ And he built an altar of marble there to appease the disquieted saint."

Notes.

The questions concerning the literary works of Hippolytus, and especially his ecclesiastical status are not yet sufficiently solved. We add a few additional observations.

I. The List of Books on the back of the Hippolytus-statue has been discussed by Fabricius, Cave, Döllinger, Wordsworth, and Volkmar. See the three pictures of the statue with the inscriptions on both sides in Fabricius, I. 36–38, and a facsimile of the book titles in the frontispiece of Wordsworth’s work. It is mutilated and reads—with the conjectural supplements in brackets and a translation—as follows

[pro;" tou;" jIouda] ijou".

Against the Jews.

[Peri; parqe ] niva".

On Virginity.

[Or, perhaps, eij" paroimiva"]

[Or, On the Proverbs.]

[eij" tou;" y]almouv".

On the Psalms.

[eij" th;n ej]ggastrivmuqon.

On the Ventriloquist [the witch at Endor?]

[ajpologiva] uJpe;r tou' kata; jIwavnnhn

Apology of the Gospel according to John,

eujaggelivou kai; ajpokaluvyew".

and the Apocalypse.

Peri; carismavtwn

On Spiritual Gifts.

ajpostolikh; paravdosi"

Apostolic Tradition.

Cronikw'n [sc. Bivblo"]

Chronicles [Book of]

pro;" {Ellhna",

Against the Greeks,

kai; pro;" Plavtwna,

and against Plato,

h[ kai; peri; tou' panto;"

or also On the All.

protreptiko;" pro;" sebhvreinan

A hortatory address to Severina. [Perhaps the Empress Severa, second wife of Elogabalus]

ajpovde[i]xi" crovnwn tou' pavsca

Demonstration of the time of the Pascha

kata; [ta]; ejn tw'/ pivnaki.

according to the order in the table.

wj/daiv [e]ij" pavsa" ta;" grafa;".

Hymns on all the Scriptures.

Peri; q[eo]u', kai; sarko;" ajnastavsew".

Concerning God, and the resurrection of the flesh.

Peri; tou' ajgaqou', kai; povqen to; kakovn

Concerning the good, and the origin of evil.

Comp. on this list Fabricius I. 79–89; Wordsworth p. 233–240; Volkmar, p. 2 sqq.

Eusebius and Jerome give also lists of the works of Hippolytus, some being the same, some different, and among the latter both mention one Against Heresies, which is probably identical with the Philosophumena. On the Canon Pasch. of Hippol. see the tables in Fabricius, I. 137–140.

Was Hippolytus a bishop, and where?

Hippolytus does not call himself a bishop, nor a "bishop of Rome," but assumes episcopal authority, and describes himself in the preface to the first book as "a successor of the Apostles, a partaker with them in the same grace and principal sacerdocy (ajrcieravteia), and doctorship, and as numbered among the guardians of the church." Such language is scarcely applicable to a mere presbyter. He also exercised the power of excommunication on certain followers of the Pope Callistus. But where was his bishopric? This is to this day a point in dispute.

(1.) He was bishop of Portus, the seaport of Rome. This is the traditional opinion in the Roman church since the seventh century, and is advocated by Ruggieri (De Portuensi S. Hippolyti, episcopi et martyris, Sede, Rom. 1771), Simon de Magistris (Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina, etc. Rom. 1795), Baron Bunsen, Dean Milman, and especially by Bishop Wordsworth. In the oldest accounts, however, he is represented as a Roman "presbyter." Bunsen combined the two views on the unproved assumption that already at that early period the Roman suburban bishops, called cardinales episcopi, were at the same time members of the Roman presbytery. In opposition to this Dr. Döllinger maintains that there was no bishop in Portus before the year 313 or 314; that Hippolytus considered himself the rightful bishop of Rome, and that he could not be simultaneously a member of the Roman presbytery and bishop of Portus. But his chief argument is that from silence which bears with equal force against his own theory. It is true that the first bishop of Portus on record appears at the Synod of Arles, 314, where he signed himself Gregorius episcopus de loco qui est in Portu Romano. The episcopal see of Ostia was older, and its occupant had (according to St. Augustin) always the privilege of consecrating the bishop of Rome. But it is quite possible that Ostia and Portus which were only divided by an island at the mouth of the Tiber formed at first one diocese. Prudentius locates the martyrdom of Hippolytus at Ostia or Portus (both are mentioned in his poem). Moreover Portus was a more important place than Döllinger will admit. The harbor whence the city derived its name Portus (also Portus Ostien Portus Urbis, Portus Romae) was constructed by the Emperor Claudius (perhaps Augustus, hence Portus Augusti), enlarged by Nero and improved by Trajan (hence Portus Trajani), and was the landing place of Ignatius on his voyage to Rome (Martyr. Ign. c. 6: tou' kaloumevnou Povrtou) where he met Christian brethren. Constantine surrounded it with strong walls and towers. Ostia may have been much more important as a commercial emporium and naval station (see Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. vol. II 501–504); but Cavalier de Rossi, in the Bulletino di Archeol., 1866, p. 37 (as quoted by Wordsworth, p. 264, sec^d ed.), proves from 13 inscriptions that "the site and name of Portus are celebrated in the records of the primitive [?] church," and that "the name is more frequently commemorated than that of Ostia." The close connection of Portus with Rome would easily account for the residence of Hippolytus at Rome and for his designation as Roman bishop. In later times the seven suburban bishops of the vicinity of Rome were the suffragans of the Pope and consecrated him. Finally, as the harbor of a large metropolis attracts strangers from every nation and tongue, Hippolytus might with propriety be called "bishop of the nations" (ejpivskopo" eJqnw'n). We conclude then that the Portus-hypothesis is not impossible, though it cannot be proven.

(2.) He was bishop of the Arabian Portus Romanus, now Aden on the Red Sea. This was the opinion of Stephen Le Moyne (1685), adopted by Cave, Tillemont, and Basnage, but now universally given up as a baseless conjecture, which rests on a misapprehension of Euseb. VI. 20, where Hippolytus accidentally collocated with Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia. Adan is nowhere mentioned as an episcopal see, and our Hippolytus belonged to the West, although he may have been of eastern origin, like Irenaeus.

(3.) Rome. Hippolytus was no less than the first Anti-Pope and claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Rome. This is the theory of Döllinger, derived from the Philosophumena and defended with much learning and acumen. The author of the Philosophumena was undoubtedly a resident of Rome, claims episcopal dignity, never recognized Callistus as bishop, but treated him merely as the head of a heretical school (didaskalei'on) or sect, calls his adherents "Callistians," some of whom he had excommunicated, but admits that Callistus had aspired to the episcopal throne and "imagined himself to have obtained" the object of his ambition after the death of Zephyrinus, and that his school formed the majority and claimed to be the catholic church Callistus on his part charged Hippolytus, on account of his view of the independent personality of the Logos, with the heresy of ditheism (a charge which stung him to the quick), and probably proceeded to excommunication. All this looks towards an open schism. This would explain the fact that Hippolytus was acknowledged in Rome only as a presbyter, while in the East he was widely known as bishop, and even as bishop of Rome. Dr. Döllinger assumes that the schism continued to the pontificate of Pontianus, the successor of Callistus, was the cause of the banishment of the two rival bishops to the pestilential island of Sardinia (in 235), and brought to a close by their resignation and reconciliation; hence their bones were brought back to Rome and solemnly deposited on the same day. Their death in exile was counted equivalent to martyrdom. Dr. Caspari of Christiania who has shed much light on the writings of Hippolytus, likewise believes that the difficulty between Hippolytus and Callistus resulted in an open schism and mutual excommunication (l. c. III. 330). Langen (Gesch. der röm. Kirche, Bonn. 1881, p. 229) is inclined to accept Döllinger’s conclusion as at least probable.

This theory is plausible and almost forced upon us by the Philosophumena, but without any solid support outside of that polemical work. History is absolutely silent about an Anti-Pope before Novatianus, who appeared fifteen years after the death of Hippolytus and shook the whole church by his schism (251), although he was far less conspicuous as a scholar and writer. A schism extending through three pontificates (for Hippolytus opposed Zephyrinus as well as Callistus) could not be hidden and so soon be forgotten, especially by Rome which has a long memory of injuries done to the chair of St. Peter and looks upon rebellion against authority as the greatest sin. The name of Hippolytus is not found in any list of Popes and Anti-Popes, Greek or Roman, while that of Callistus occurs in all. Even Jerome who spent over twenty years from about 350 to 372, and afterwards four more years in Rome and was intimate with Pope Damasus, knew nothing of the see of Hippolytus, although he knew some of his writings. It seems incredible that an Anti-Pope should ever have been canonized by Rome as a saint and martyr. It is much easier to conceive that the divines of the distant East were mistaken. The oldest authority which Döllinger adduces for the designation "bishop of Rome," that of Presbyter Eustratius of Constantinople about a.d. 582 (see p. 84), is not much older than the designation of Hippolytus as bishop of Portus, and of no more critical value.

(4.) Dr. Salmon offers a modification of the Döllinger-hypothesis by assuming that Hippolytus was a sort of independent bishop of a Greek-speaking congregation in Rome. He thus explains the enigmatical expression ejqnw'n ejpiskopo", which Photius applies to Caius, but which probably belongs to Hippolytus. But history knows nothing of two independent and legitimate bishops in the city of Rome. Moreover there still remains the difficulty that Hippolytus notwithstanding his open resistance rose afterwards to such high honors in the papal church. We can only offer the following considerations as a partial solution: first, that he wrote in Greek which died out in Rome, so that his books became unknown; secondly, that aside from those attacks he did, like the schismatic Tertullian, eminent service to the church by his learning and championship of orthodoxy and churchly piety; and lastly, that be was believed (as we learn from Prudentius) to have repented of his schism and, like Cyprian, wiped out his sin by his martyrdom.

But no matter whether Hippolytus was bishop or presbyter in Rome or Portus, he stands out an irrefutable witness against the claims of an infallible papacy which was entirely unknown in the third century. No wonder that Roman divines of the nineteenth century (with the exception of Döllinger who seventeen years after he wrote his book on Hippolytus seceded from Rome in consequence of the Vatican decree of infallibility) deny his authorship of this to them most obnoxious book. The Abbé Cruice ascribes it to Caius or Tertullian, the Jesuit Armellini to Novatian, and de Rossi (1866) hesitatingly to Tertullian, who, however, was no resident of Rome, but of Carthage. Cardinal Newman declares it "simply incredible" that a man so singularly honored as St. Hippolytus should be the author of "that malignant libel on his contemporary popes," who did not scruple "in set words to call Pope Zephyrinus a weak and venal dunce, and Pope Callistus a sacrilegious swindler, an infamous convict, and an heresiarch ex cathedra." (Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1874, p. 222, quoted by Plummer, p. xiv. and 340.) But he offers no solution, nor can he. Dogma versus history is as unavailing as the pope’s bull against the comet. Nor is Hippolytus, or whoever wrote that "malignant libel "alone in his position. The most eminent ante-Nicene fathers, and the very ones who laid the foundations of the catholic system, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian (not to speak of Origen, and of Novatian, the Anti-Pope), protested on various grounds against Rome. And it is a remarkable fact that the learned Dr. Döllinger who, in 1853, so ably defended the Roman see against the charges of Hippolytus should, in 1870, have assumed a position not unlike that of Hippolytus, against the error of p

§ 184. Caius of Rome.

Euseb.: H. E. II. 25; III. 28, 31; VI. 20. Hieron.: De Vir. ill. 59. Theodor.: Fa b. Haer. II. 3; III. 2. Photius: Biblioth. Cod. 48. Perhaps also Martyr. Polyc., c. 22, where a Caius is mentioned as a pupil or friend of Irenaeus.

Routh: Rel. S. II. 125–158 (Comp. also I. 397–403). Bunsen: Analecta Ante-Nicaena I. 409 sq. Caspari: Quellen etc., III. 330, 349, 374 sqq. Harnack in Herzog,² III. 63 sq. Salmon in Smith and Wace I. 384–386. Comp. also Heinichen’s notes on Euseb. II. 25 (in Comment. III. 63–67), and the Hippolytus liter., § 183, especially Döllinger. (250 sq.) and Volkmar. (60–71).

Among the Western divines who, like Irenaeus and Hippolytus, wrote exclusively in Greek, must be mentioned Caius who flourished during the episcopate of Zephyrinus in the first quarter of the third century. He is known to us only from a few Greek fragments as an opponent of Montanism and Chiliasm. He was probably a Roman presbyter. From his name,(262) and from the fact that he did not number Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles, we may infer that he was a native of Rome or at least of the West. Eusebius calls him a very learned churchman or ecclesiastic author at Rome,(263) and quotes four times his disputation with Proclus (Gr. ), the leader of one party of the Montanists.(264) He preserves from it the notice that Philip and his four prophetic daughters are buried at Hierapolis in Phrygia, and an important testimony concerning the monuments or trophies (Gr. ) of Peter and Paul, the founders of the Roman church, on the Vatican hill and the Ostian road.

This is nearly all that is certain and interesting about Caius. Jerome, as usual in his catalogue of illustrious men, merely repeats the, statements of Eusebius, although from his knowledge of Rome we might expect some additional information. Photius, on the strength of a marginal note in the MS. of a supposed work of Caius On the Universe, says that he was a "presbyter of the Roman church during the episcopate of Victor and Zephyrinus, and that he was elected bishop of the Gentiles ( )." He ascribes to him that work and also The Labyrinth, but hesitatingly. His testimony is too late to be of any value, and rests on a misunderstanding of Eusebius and a confusion of Caius with Hippolytus, an error repeated by modern critics.(265) Both persons have so much in common—age, residence, title—that they have been identified (Caius being supposed to be simply the praenomen of Hippolytus).(266) But this cannot be proven; Eusebius clearly distinguishes them, and Hippolytus was no opponent of Chiliasm, and only a moderate opponent of Montanism; while Caius wrote against the Chiliastic dreams of Cerinthus; but he did not deny, as has been wrongly inferred from Eusebius, the Johannean authorship of the Apocalypse; he probably meant pretended revelations ( ) of that heretic. He and Hippolytus no doubt agreed with the canon of the Roman church, which recognized thirteen epistles of Paul (excluding Hebrews) and the Apocalypse of John.

Caius has been surrounded since Photius with a mythical halo of authorship, and falsely credited with several works of Hippolytus, including the recently discovered Philosophumena. The Muratorian fragment on the canon of the New Testament was also ascribed to him by the discoverer (Muratori, 1740) and recent writers. But this fragment is of earlier date (a.d. 170), and written in Latin, though perhaps originally in Greek. It is as far as we know the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon.(267)

§ 185. The Alexandrian School of Theology.

J. G. Michaelis: De Scholae Alexandrinae prima origine, progressu, ac praecpuis doctoribus. Hal. 1739.

H. E. Fr. Guerike: De Schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica commentatio historica et theologica. Hal. 1824 and ’25. 2 Parts (pp. 119 and 456). The second Part is chiefly devoted to Clement and Origen.

C. F. W. Hasselbach: De Schola, quae Alex. floruit, catech. Stettin 1826. P. 1. (against Guerike), and De discipulorum ... s. De Catechumenorum ordinibus, Ibid. 1839.

J. Matter: L’Histoire de l’ École d’Alexandrie, second ed. Par. 1840. 3 vols.

J. Simon: Histoire de I’ École d’Alexandrie. Par. 1845.

E. Vacherot: Histoire critique de l’ École d’Alexandrie. Par. 1851. 3 vols.

Neander: I. 527–557 (Am. ed.); Gieseler I. 208–210 (Am. ed.)

Ritter: Gesch. der christl. Philos. I. 421 sqq.

Ueberweg: History of Philosophy, vol. I. p. 311–319 (Engl. transl. 1875).

Redepenning in his Origenes I. 57–83, and art. in Herzog² I. 290–292. Comp. also two arts. on the Jewish, and the New-Platonic schools of Alexandria, by M. Nicolas in Lichtenberger’s "Encyclopédie" I. 159–170.

C. H. Bigg: The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Lond. 1886.

Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great three hundred and twenty-two years before Christ, on the mouth of the Nile, within a few hours’ sail from Asia and Europe, was the metropolis of Egypt, the flourishing seat of commerce, of Grecian and Jewish learning, and of the greatest library of the ancient world, and was destined to become one of the great centres of Christianity, the rival of Antioch and Rome. There the religious life of Palestine and the intellectual culture of Greece commingled and prepared the way for the first school of theology which aimed at a philosophic comprehension and vindication of the truths of revelation. Soon after the founding of the church which tradition traces to St. Mark, the Evangelist, there arose a "Catechetical school" under the supervision of the bishop.(268) It was originally designed only for the practical purpose of preparing willing heathens and Jews of all classes for baptism. But in that home of the Philonic theology, of Gnostic heresy, and of Neo-Platonic philosophy, it soon very naturally assumed a learned character, and became, at the same time, a sort of theological seminary, which exercised a powerful influence on the education of many bishops and church teachers, and on the development of Christian science. It had at first but a single teacher, afterwards two or more, but without fixed salary, or special buildings. The more wealthy pupils paid for tuition, but the offer was often declined. The teachers gave their instructions in their dwellings, generally after the style of the ancient philosophers.

The first superintendent of this school known to us was Pantaenus, a converted Stoic philosopher, about a.d. 180. He afterwards labored as a missionary in India, and left several commentaries, of which, however, nothing remains but some scanty fragments.(269) He was followed by Clement, to a.d. 202 and Clement, by Origen, to 232, who raised the school to the summit of its prosperity, and founded a similar one at Caesarea in Palestine. The institution was afterwards conducted by Origen’s pupils, Heraclas (d. 248), and Dionysius (d. 265), and last by the blind but learned Didymus (d. 395), until, at the end of the fourth century, it sank for ever amidst the commotions and dissensions of the Alexandrian church, which at last prepared the way for the destructive conquest of the Arabs (640). The city itself gradually sank to a mere village, and Cairo took its place (since 969). In the present century it is fast rising again, under European auspices, to great commercial importance.

From this catechetical school proceeded a peculiar theology, the most learned and genial representatives of which were Clement and Origen. This theology is, on the one hand, a regenerated Christian form of the Alexandrian Jewish religious philosophy of Philo; on the other, a catholic counterpart, and a positive refutation of the heretical Gnosis, which reached its height also in Alexandria, but half a century earlier. The Alexandrian theology aims at a reconciliation of Christianity with philosophy, or, subjectively speaking, of pistis with gnosis; but it seeks this union upon the basis of the Bible, and the doctrine of the church. Its centre, therefore, is the Divine Logos, viewed as the sum of all reason and all truth, before and after the incarnation. Clement came from the Hellenic philosophy to the Christian faith; Origen, conversely, was led by faith to speculation. The former was an aphoristic thinker, the latter a systematic. The one borrowed ideas from various systems; the other followed more the track of Platonism. But both were Christian philosophers and churchly gnostics. As Philo, long before them, in the same city, had combined Judaism with Grecian culture, so now they carried the Grecian culture into Christianity. This, indeed, the apologists and controversialists of the second century had already done, as far back as Justin the "philosopher." But the Alexandrians were more learned, and made much freer use of the Greek philosophy. They saw in it not sheer error, but in one view a gift of God, and an intellectual schoolmaster for Christ, like the law in the moral and religious here. Clement compares it to a wild olive tree, which can be ennobled by faith; Origen (in the fragment of an epistle to Gregory Thaumaturgus), to the jewels, which the Israelites took with them out of Egypt, and turned into ornaments for their sanctuary, though they also wrought them into the golden calf. Philosophy is not necessarily an enemy to the truth, but may, and should be its handmaid, and neutralize the attacks against it. The elements of truth in the heathen philosophy they attributed partly to the secret operation of the Logos in the world of reason, partly to acquaintance with the writings of Moses and the prophets.

So with the Gnostic heresy. The Alexandrians did not sweepingly condemn it, but recognized the desire for deeper religious knowledge, which lay at its root, and sought to meet this desire with a wholesome supply from the Bible itself. Their maxim was, in the words of Clement: "No faith without knowledge, no knowledge without faith;" or: "Unless you believe, you will not understand."(270) Faith and knowledge have the same substance, the saving truth of God, revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and faithfully handed down by the church; they differ only in form. Knowledge is our consciousness of the deeper ground and consistency of faith. The Christian knowledge, however, is also a gift of grace, and has its condition in a holy life. The ideal of a Christian gnostic includes perfect love as well as perfect knowledge, of God. Clement describes him as one "who, growing grey in the study of the Scriptures, and preserving the orthodoxy of the apostles and the church, lives strictly according to the gospel."

The Alexandrian theology is intellectual, profound, stirring and full of fruitful germs of thought, but rather unduly idealistic and spiritualistic, and, in exegesis, loses itself in arbitrary allegorical fancies. In its efforts to reconcile revelation and philosophy it took up, like Philo, many foreign elements, especially of the Platonic stamp, and wandered into speculative views which a later and more orthodox, but more narrow-minded and less productive age condemned as heresies, not appreciating the immortal service of this school to its own and after times.

§ 186. Clement of Alexandria.

(I.) Clementis Alex. Opera omnia Gr. et Lat. ed. Potter (bishop of Oxford). Oxon. 1715. 2 vols. Reprinted Venet. 1757. 2 vols. fol., and in Migne’s "Patr. Gr." vols. VIII. and IX., with various additions and the comments of Nic. Le Nourry. For an account of the MSS. and editions of Clement see Fabricius; Biblioth. Graeca, ed. Harles, vol. VII. 109 sqq.

Other edd. by Victorinus (Florence, 1550); Sylburg (Heidel b. 1592) Heinsius (Graeco-Latin., Leyden, 1616); Klotz (Leipz. 1831–34, 4 vols., only in Greek, and very incorrect); W. Dindorf (Oxf. 1868–69, 4 vols.).

English translation by Wm. Wilson in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," vols. IV. and V. Edinb. 1867.

(II.) Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. V. 11; VI. 6, 11, 13. Hieronymus: De Vir. ill. 38; Photius: Biblioth. 109–111. See the Testimonia Veterum de Cl. collected in Potter’s ed. at the beginning of vol. I. and in Migne’s ed. VIII. 35–50.

(III.) Hofstede De Groot: Dissert. de Clem. Alex. Groning. 1826. A. F. Daehne: De gnwvsei Clem Al. Hal. 1831.

F. R. Eylert: Clem. v. Alex. als Philosoph und Dichter. Leipz. 1832.

Bishop Kaye: Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alex. Lond. 1835.

Kling: Die Bedeutung des Clem. Alex. für die Entstehung der Theol. ("Stud. u. Krit." for 1841, No. 4).

H. J. Reinkens: De Clem. Alex. homine, scriptore, philosopho, theologo. Wratisl. (Breslau) 1851.

H. Reuter: Clementis Alex. Theol. moralis. Berl. 1853.

Laemmer.: Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina. Lips. 1855.

Abbé Cognat: Clement d’Alexandrie. Paris 1859.

J. H. Müller: Idées dogm. de Clement d’Alex. Strasb. 1861.

CH. E. Freppel. (R.C.): Clément d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1866, second ed. 1873.

C. Merk: Clemens v. Alex. in s. Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie. Leipz. 1879.

Fr. Jul. Winter: Die Ethik des Clemens v. Alex. Leipz. 1882 (first part of Studien zur Gesch. der christl. Ethik).

Jacobi in Herzog² III. 269–277, and Westcott in Smith and Wace l. 559–567.

Theod. Zahn: Supplementum Clementinum. Third Part of his Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. lichen Kanons. Erlangen 1884.

I. Titus Flavius Clemens(271) sprang from Greece, probably from Athens. He was born about 150, and brought up in heathenism. He was versed in all branches of Hellenic literature and in all the existing systems of philosophy; but in these he found nothing to satisfy his thirst for truth. In his adult years, therefore, he embraced the Christian religion, and by long journeys East and West he sought the most distinguished teachers, "who preserved the tradition of pure saving doctrine, and implanted that genuine apostolic seed in the hearts of their pupils." He was captivated by Pantaenus in Egypt, who, says he, "like the Sicilian bee, plucked flowers from the apostolic and prophetic meadow, and filled the souls of his disciples with genuine, pure knowledge." He became presbyter in the church of Alexandria, and about a.d. 189 succeeded Pantaenus as president of the catechetical school of that city. Here he labored benignly some twelve years for the conversion of heathens and the education of the Christians, until, as it appears, the persecution under Septimius Severus in 202 compelled him to flee. After this we find him in Antioch, and last (211) with his former pupil, the bishop Alexander, in Jerusalem. Whether he returned thence to Alexandria is unknown. He died before the year 220, about the same time with Tertullian. He has no place, any more than Origen, among the saints of the Roman church, though he frequently bore this title of honor in ancient times. His name is found in early Western martyrologies, but was omitted in the martyrology issued by Clement VIII. at the suggestion of Baronius. Benedict XIV. elaborately defended the omission (1748), on the ground of unsoundness in doctrine.

Clement was the father of the Alexandrian Christian philosophy. He united thorough biblical and Hellenic learning with genius and speculative thought. He rose, In many points, far above the prejudices of his age, to more free and spiritual views. His theology, however, is not a unit, but a confused eclectic mixture of true Christian elements with many Stoic, Platonic, and Philonic ingredients. His writings are full of repetition, and quite lacking in clear, fixed method. He throws out his suggestive and often profound thoughts in fragments, or purposely veils them, especially in the Stromata, in a mysterious darkness, to conceal them from the exoteric multitude, and to stimulate the study of the initiated or philosophical Christians. He shows here an affinity with the heathen mystery cultus, and the Gnostic arcana. His extended knowledge of Grecian literature and rich quotations from the lost works of poets, philosophers, and historians give him importance also in investigations regarding classical antiquity. He lived in an age of transition when Christian thought was beginning to master and to assimilate the whole domain of human knowledge. "And when it is frankly admitted" (says Dr. Westcott) "that his style is generally deficient in terseness and elegance; that his method is desultory; that his learning is undigested: we can still thankfully admire his richness of information, his breadth of reading, his largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, his noble conception of the office and capacities of the Faith."
The three leading works which he composed during his residence as teacher in Alexandria, between the years 190 and 195, represent the three stages in the discipline of the human race by the divine Logos, corresponding to the three degrees of knowledge required by the ancient in mystagogues,(272) and are related to one another very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics, or as faith, love, and mystic vision, or as the, stages of the Christian cultus up to the celebration of the sacramental mysteries. The "Exhortation to the Greeks,"(273) in three books, with almost a waste of learning, points out the unreasonableness and immorality, but also the nobler prophetic element, of heathenism, and seeks to lead the sinner to repentance and faith. The "Tutor" or "Educator"(274) unfolds the Christian morality with constant reference to heathen practices, and exhorts to a holy walk, the end of which is likeness to God. The Educator is Christ, and the children whom he trains, are simple, sincere believers. The "Stromata" or "Miscellanies,"(275) in seven books (the eighth, containing, an imperfect treatise on logic, is spurious), furnishes a guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, but is without any methodical arrangement, a heterogeneous mixture of curiosities of history, beauties of poetry, reveries of philosophy, Christian truths and heretical errors (hence the name). He compares it to a thick-grown, shady mountain or garden, where fruitful and barren trees of all kinds, the cypress, the laurel, the ivy, the apple, the olive, the fig, stand confusedly grouped together, that many may remain hidden from the eye of the plunderer without escaping the notice of the laborer, who might transplant and arrange them in pleasing order. It was, probably, only a prelude to a more comprehensive theology. At the close the author portrays the ideal of the true gnostic, that is, the perfect Christian, assigning to him, among other traits, a stoical elevation above all sensuous affections. The inspiring thought of Clement is that Christianity satisfies all the intellectual and moral aspirations and wants of man.

Besides these principal works we have, from Clement also, an able and moderately ascetic treatise, on the right use of wealth.(276) His ethical principles are those of the Hellenic philosophy, inspired by the genius of Christianity. He does not run into the excesses of asceticism, though evidently under its influence. His exegetical works,(277) as well as a controversial treatise on prophecy against the Montanists, and another on the passover, against the Judaizing practice in Asia Minor, are all lost, except some inconsiderable fragments.

To Clement we owe also the oldest Christian hymn that has come down to us; an elevated but somewhat turgid song of praise to the Logos, as the divine educator and leader of the human race.(278)

§ 187. Origen.

(I.) Origenis Opera omnia Graece et Lat. Ed. Carol. et Vinc. De la Rue. Par. 1733–’59, 4 vols. fol. The only complete ed., begun by the Benedictine Charles D. L. R., and after his death completed by his nephew Vincent. Republ. in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. 1857, 8 vols., with additions from Galland (1781), Cramer (1840–44), and Mai (1854).

Other editions by J. Merlinus (ed. princeps, Par. 1512–’19, 2 vols. fol., again in Venice 1516, and in Paris 1522; 1530, only the Lat. text); by Erasmus and Beatus Rhenanus (Bas. 1536, 2 vols. fol.; 1545; 1551; 1557; 1571); by the Benedictine G. Genebrard (Par. 1574; 1604; 1619 in 2 vols. fol., all in Lat.); by Corderius (Antw. 1648, partly in Greek); by P. D. Huetius, or Huet, afterwards Bp. of Avranges (Rouen, 1668, 2 vols. fol., the Greek writings, with very learned dissertations, Origeniana; again Paris 1679; Cologne 1685); by Montfaucon (only the Hexapla, Par. 1713, ’14, 2 vols. fol., revised and improved ed. by Field, Oxf. 1875); by Lommatsch (Berol. 1837–48, 25 vols. oct.).

English translation of select works of Origen by F. Crombie in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," Edinb. 1868, and N. York 1885.

(II.) Eusebius: Hist. Eccles. VI. 1–6 and passim. Hieronymus: De Vir. ill. 54; Ep. 29, 41, and often. Gregorius Thaumat.: Oratio panegyrica in Origenem. Pamphilus: Apologia Orig. Rufinus: De Adulteratione librorum Origenis. All in the last vol. of Delarue’s ed.

(III.) P. D. Huetius: Origeniana. Par. 1679, 2 vols. (and in Delarue’s ed. vol. 4th). Very learned, and apologetic for Origen.

G. Thomasius: Origenes. Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengesch. Nürnb. 1837.

E. Rud. Redepenning: Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre. Bonn 1841 and ’46, in 2 vols. (pp. 461 and 491).

Böhringer: Origenes und sein Lehrer Klemens, oder die Alexandrinische innerkirchliche Gnosis des Christenthums. Bd. V. of Kirchengesch. in Biographieen. Second ed. Leipz. 1873.

Ch. E. Freppel, (R.C.): Origène, Paris 1868, second ed. 1875.

Comp. the articles of Schmitz in Smith’s "Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biogr." III. 46–55; Möller in Herzog² Vol. XI. 92–109 Westcott in "Dict. of Chr. Biogr," IV. 96–142; Farrar, in "Lives of the Fathers," I. 291–330.

Also the respective sections in Bull (Defens. Fid. Nic. ch. IX. in Delarue, IV. 339–357), Neander, Baur, and Dorner (especially on Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation); and on his Philosophy, Ritter, Huber, Ueberweg.

I. Life And Character. Origenes,(279) surnamed "Adamantius" on account of his industry and purity of character(280) is one of the most remarkable men in history for genius and learning, for the influence he exerted on his age, and for the controversies and discussions to which his opinions gave rise. He was born of Christian parents at Alexandria, in the year 185, and probably baptized in childhood, according to Egyptian custom which be traced to apostolic origin.(281) Under the direction of his father, Leonides,(282) who was probably a rhetorician, and of the celebrated Clement at the catechetical school, he received a pious and learned education. While yet a boy, be knew whole sections of the Bible by memory, and not rarely perplexed his father with questions on the deeper sense of Scripture. The father reproved his curiosity, but thanked God for such a son, and often, as he slept, reverentially kissed his breast as a temple of the Holy Spirit. Under the persecution of Septimius Severus in 202, he wrote to his father in prison, beseeching him not to deny Christ for the sake of his family, and strongly desired to give himself up to the heathen authorities, but was prevented by his mother, who hid his clothes. Leonides died a martyr, and, as his property was confiscated, he left a helpless widow with seven children. Origen was for a time assisted by a wealthy matron, and then supported himself by giving instruction in the Greek language and literature, and by copying manuscripts.

In the year 203, though then only eighteen years of age, he was nominated by the bishop Demetrius, afterwards his opponent, president of the catechetical school of Alexandria, left vacant by the flight of Clement. To fill this important office, he made himself acquainted with the various heresies, especially the Gnostic, and with the Grecian philosophy; he was not even ashamed to study under the heathen Ammonius Saccas, the celebrated founder of Neo-Platonism. He learned also the Hebrew language, and made journeys to Rome (211), Arabia, Palestine (215), and Greece. In Rome he became slightly acquainted with Hippolytus, the author of the Philosophumena, who was next to himself the most learned man of his age. Döllinger thinks it all but certain that he sided with Hippolytus in his controversy with Zephyrinus and Callistus, for he shared (at least in his earlier period) his rigoristic principles of discipline, had a dislike for the proud and overbearing bishops in large cities, and held a subordinatian view of the Trinity, but he was far superior to his older contemporary in genius, depth, and penetrating insight.(283)

When his labors and the number of his pupils increased he gave the lower classes of the catechetical school into the charge of his pupil Heraclas, and devoted himself wholly to the more advanced students. He was successful in bringing many eminent heathens and heretics to the Catholic church; among them a wealthy Gnostic, Ambrosius, who became his most liberal patron, furnishing him a costly library for his biblical studies, seven stenographers, and a number of copyists (some of whom were young Christian women), the former to note down his dictations, the latter to engross them. His fame spread far and wide over Egypt. Julia Mammaea, mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, brought him to Antioch in 218, to learn from him the doctrines of Christianity. An Arabian prince honored him with a visit for the same purpose.

His mode of life during the whole period was strictly ascetic. He made it a matter of principle, to renounce every earthly thing not indispensably necessary. He refused the gifts of his pupils, and in literal obedience to the Saviour’s injunction he had but one coat, no shoes, and took no thought of the morrow. He rarely ate flesh, never drank wine; devoted the greater part of the night to prayer and study, and slept on the bare floor. Nay, in his youthful zeal for ascetic holiness, he even committed the act of self-emasculation, partly to fulfil literally the mysterious words of Christ, in Matt. 19:12, for the sake of the kingdom of God, partly to secure himself against all temptation and calumny which might arise from his intercourse with many female catechumens.(284) By this inconsiderate and misdirected heroism, which he himself repented in his riper years, he incapacitated himself, according to the canons of the church, for the clerical office. Nevertheless, a long time afterwards, in 228, he was ordained presbyter by two friendly bishops, Alexander of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who had, even before this, on a former visit of his, invited him while a layman, to teach publicly in their churches, and to expound the Scriptures to their people.

But this foreign ordination itself, and the growing reputation of Origen among heathens and Christians, stirred the jealousy of the bishop Demetrius of Alexandria, who charged him besides, and that not wholly without foundation, with corrupting Christianity by foreign speculations. This bishop held two councils, a.d. 231 and 232, against the great theologian, and enacted, that he, for his false doctrine, his self-mutilation, and his violation of the church laws, be deposed from his offices of presbyter and catechist, and excommunicated. This unrighteous sentence, in which envy, hierarchical arrogance, and zeal for orthodoxy joined, was communicated, as the custom was, to other churches. The Roman church, always ready to anathematize, concurred without further investigation; while the churches of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, which were better informed, decidedly disapproved it.

In this controversy Origen showed a genuine Christian meekness. "We must pity them," said he of his enemies, "rather than hate them; pray for them, rather than curse them; for we are made for blessing, and not for cursing." He betook himself to his friend, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, prosecuted his studies there, opened a new philosophical and theological school, which soon outshone that of Alexandria, and labored for the spread of the kingdom of God. The persecution under Maximinus Thrax (235) drove him for a time to Cappadocia. Thence he went to Greece, and then back to Palestine. He was called into consultation in various ecclesiastical disputes, and had an extensive correspondence, in which were included even the emperor Philip the Arabian, and his wife. Though thrust out as a heretic from his home, he reclaimed the erring in foreign lands to the faith of the church. At an Arabian council, for example, be convinced the bishop Beryllus of his christological error, and persuaded him to retract (A. D. 244).

At last he received an honorable invitation to return to Alexandria, where, meantime, his pupil Dionysius had become bishop. But in the Decian persecution he was cast into prison, cruelly tortured, and condemned to the stake; and though he regained his liberty by the death of the emperor, yet he died some time after, at the age of sixty-nine, in the year 253 or 254, at Tyre, probably in consequence of that violence. He belongs, therefore, at least among the confessors, if not among the martyrs. He was buried at Tyre.

It is impossible to deny a respectful sympathy, veneration and gratitude to this extraordinary man, who, with all his brilliant talents and a best of enthusiastic friends and admirers, was driven from his country, stripped of his sacred office, excommunicated from a part of the church, then thrown into a dungeon, loaded with chains, racked by torture, doomed to drag his aged frame and dislocated limbs in pain and poverty, and long after his death to have his memory branded, his name anathematized, and his salvation denied;(285) but who nevertheless did more than all his enemies combined to advance the cause of sacred learning, to refute and convert heathens and heretics, and to make the church respected in the eyes of the world.

His Theology. Origen was the greatest scholar of his age, and the most gifted, most industrious, and most cultivated of all the ante-Nicene fathers. Even heathens and heretics admired or feared his brilliant talent and vast learning. His knowledge embraced all departments of the philology, philosophy, and theology of his day. With this he united profound and fertile thought, keen penetration, and glowing imagination. As a true divine, he consecrated all his studies by prayer, and turned them, according to his best convictions, to the service of truth and piety.

He may be called in many respects the Schleiermacher of the Greek church. He was a guide from the heathen philosophy and the heretical Gnosis to the Christian faith. He exerted an immeasurable influence in stimulating the development of the catholic theology and forming the great Nicene fathers, Athanasius, Basil, the two Gregories, Hilary, and Ambrose, who consequently, in spite of all his deviations, set great value on his services. But his best disciples proved unfaithful to many of his most peculiar views, and adhered far more to the reigning faith of the church. For—and in this too he is like Schleiermacher—he can by no means be called orthodox, either in the Catholic or in the Protestant sense. His leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato, and his noble effort to reconcile Christianity with reason, and to commend it even to educated heathens and Gnostics, led him into many grand and fascinating errors. Among these are his extremely ascetic and almost docetistic conception of corporeity, his denial of a material resurrection, his doctrine of the pre-existence and the pre-temporal fall of souls (including the pre-existence of the human soul of Christ), of eternal creation, of the extension of the work of redemption to the inhabitants of the stars and to all rational creatures, and of the final restoration of all men and fallen angels. Also in regard to the dogma of the divinity of Christ, though he powerfully supported it, and was the first to teach expressly the eternal generation of the Son, yet he may be almost as justly considered a forerunner of the Arian heteroousion, or at least of the semi-Arian homoiousion, as of the Athanasian homoousion.

These and similar views provoked more or less contradiction during his lifetime, and were afterwards, at a local council in Constantinople in 543, even solemnly condemned as heretical.(286) But such a man might in such an age hold erroneous opinions without being a heretic. For Origen propounded his views always with modesty and from sincere conviction of their agreement with Scripture, and that in a time when the church doctrine was as yet very indefinite in many points. For this reason even learned Roman divines, such as Tillemont and Möhler have shown Origen the greatest respect and leniency; a fact the more to be commended, since the Roman church has refused him, as well as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, a place among the saints and the fathers in the stricter sense.

Origen’s greatest service was in exegesis. He is father of the critical investigation of Scripture, and his commentaries are still useful to scholars for their suggestiveness. Gregory Thaumaturgus says, he had "received from God the greatest gift, to be an interpreter of the word of God to men." For that age this judgment is perfectly just. Origen remained the exegetical oracle until Chrysostom far surpassed him, not indeed in originality and vigor of mind and extent of learning, but in sound, sober tact, in simple, natural analysis, and in practical application of the text. His great defect is the neglect of the grammatical and historical sense and his constant desire to find a hidden mystic meaning. He even goes further in this direction than the Gnostics, who everywhere saw transcendental, unfathomable mysteries. His hermeneutical principle assumes a threefold sense—somatic, psychic, and pneumatic; or literal, moral, and spiritual. His allegorical interpretation is ingenious, but often runs far away from the text and degenerates into the merest caprice; while at times it gives way to the opposite extreme of a carnal literalism, by which he justifies his ascetic extravagance.(287)

Origen is one of the most important witnesses of the ante-Nicene text of the Greek Testament, which is older than the received text. He compared different MSS. and noted textual variations, but did not attempt a recension or lay down any principles of textual criticism. The value of his testimony is due to his rare opportunities and life-long study of the Bible before the time when the traditional Syrian and Byzantine text was formed.

§ 188. The Works of Origen.

Origen was an uncommonly prolific author, but by no means an idle bookmaker. Jerome says, he wrote more than other men can read. Epiphanius, an opponent, states the number of his works as six thousand, which is perhaps not much beyond the mark, if we include all his short tracts, homilies, and letters, and count them as separate volumes. Many of them arose without his cooeperation, and sometimes against his will, from the writing down of his oral lectures by others. Of his books which remain, some have come down to us only in Latin translations, and with many alterations in favor of the later orthodoxy. They extend to all branches of the theology of that day.

His biblical works were the most numerous, and may be divided into critical, exegetical, and hortatory.

Among the critical were the Hexapla(288) (the Sixfold Bible) and the shorter Tetrapla (the Fourfold), on which he spent eight-and-twenty years of the most unwearied labor. The Hexapla was the first polyglott Bible, but covered only the Old Testament, and was designed not for the critical restoration of the original text, but merely for the improvement of the received Septuagint, and the defense of it against the charge of inaccuracy. It contained, in six columns, the original text in two forms, in Hebrew and in Greek characters, and the four Greek versions of the Septuagint, of Aquila, of Symmachus, and of Theodotion. To these he added, in several books two or three other anonymous Greek versions.(289) The order was determined by the degree of literalness. The Tetrapla(290) contained only the four versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion. The departures from the standard he marked with the critical signs asterisk () for alterations and additions, and obelos* ( ) for proposed omissions. He also added marginal notes, e.g., explanations of Hebrew names. The voluminous work was placed in the library at Caesarea, was still much used in the time of Jerome (who saw it there), but doubtless never transcribed, except certain portions, most frequently the Septuagint columns (which were copied, for instance, by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and regarded as the standard text), and was probably destroyed by the Saracens in 653. We possess, therefore, only some fragments of it, which were collected and edited by the learned Benedictine Montfaucon (1714), and more recentl;y by an equallt learned Anglican scholar, Dr. Field (1875).¹⁴⁷³

His commentaries covered almost all the books of the Old and New Testaments, and contained a vast wealth of original and profound suggestions, with the most arbitrary allegorical and mystical fancies. They were of three kinds: (a) Short notes on single difficult passages for beginners;(291) all these are lost, except what has been gathered from the citations of the fathers (by Delarue under the title [Eklogaiv Selecta). (b) Extended expositions of whole books, for higher scientific study;(292) of, these we have a number of important fragments in the original, and in the translation of Rufinus. In the Commentary on John the Gnostic exegeses of Heracleon is much used. (c) Hortatory or practical applications of Scripture for the congregation or Homilies.(293) They were delivered extemporaneously, mostly in Caesarea and in the latter part of his life, and taken down by stenographers. They are important also to the history of pulpit oratory. But we have them only in part, as translated by Jerome and Rufinus, with many unscrupulous retrenchments and additions, which perplex and are apt to mislead investigators.

Apologetic and polemic works. The refutation of Celsus’s attack upon Christianity, in eight books, written in the last years of his life, about 248, is preserved complete in the original, and is one of the ripest and most valuable productions of Origen, and of the whole ancient apologetic literature.(294) And yet he did not know who this Celsus was, whether he lived in the reign of Nero or that of Hadrian, while modern scholars assign him to the period a.d. 150 to 178. His numerous polemic writings against heretics are all gone.
Of his dogmatic writings we have, though only in the inaccurate Latin translation of Rufinus, his juvenile production, De Principiis, i.e. on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, in four books.(295) It was written in Alexandria, and became the chief source of objections to his theology. It was the first attempt at a complete system of dogmatics, but full of his peculiar Platonizing and Gnosticizing errors, some of which he retracted in his riper years. In this work Origen treats in four books, first, of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; in the second book, of creation and the incarnation, the resurrection and the judgment; in the third, of freedom, which he very strongly sets forth and defends against the Gnostics; in the fourth, of the Holy Scriptures, their inspiration and authority, and the interpretation of them; concluding with a recapitulation of the doctrine of the trinity. His Stromata, in imitation of the work of the same name by Clemens Alex., seems to have been doctrinal and exegetical, and is lost with the exception of two or three fragments quoted in Latin by Jerome. His work on the Resurrection is likewise lost.
Among his practical works may be mentioned a treatise on prayer, with an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,(296) and an exhortation to martyrdom,(297) written during the persecution of Maximin (235–238), and addressed to his friend and patron Ambrosius.
Of his letters, of which Eusebius collected over eight hundred, we have, besides a few fragments, only all answer to Julius Africanus on the authenticity of the history of Susanna.

Among the works of Origen is also usually inserted the Philocalia, or a collection, in twenty-seven chapters, of extracts from his writings on various exegetical questions, made by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great.(298)

§ 189. Gregory Thaumaturgus.

T. S. Gregorii episcopi Neocaesariensis Opera omnia, ed. G. Vossius, Mag. 1604; better ed. by Fronto Ducaeus, Par. 1622, fol.; in Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patrum" (1766–77), Tom. III., p. 385–470; and in Migne. "Patrol. Gr." Tom. X. (1857), 983–1343. Comp. also a Syriac version of Gregory’s kata; mevro" pivsti" in R. de Lagarde’s Analecta Syriaca, Leipz. 1858, pp. 31–67.

Gregory Of Nyssa: Bivo" kai; ejgkwvmion rJhvqen eij" to;n a{gion Grhgovrion to;n qaumatourgovn. In the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (Migne, vol. 46). A eulogy full of incredible miracles, which the author heard from his grandmother.

English translation by S. D. F. Salmond, in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. xx. (1871), p. 1–156.

C. P. Caspari: Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesc. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania, 1879, p. 1–160.

Victor Ryssel: Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Leipzig, 1880 (160 pp.). On other biograpbical essays of G., see Ryssel, pp. 59 sqq. Contains a translation of two hitherto unknown Syriac writings of Gregory.

W. Möller in Herzog², V. 404 sq. H. R. Reynolds in Smith & Wace, II. 730–737.

Most of the Greek fathers of the third and fourth centuries stood more or less under the influence of the spirit and the works of Origen, without adopting all his peculiar speculative views. The most distinguished among his disciples are Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, surnamed the Great, Heraclas, Hieracas, Pamphilus; in a wider sense also Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa and other eminent divines of the Nicene age.

Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus, "the wonder-worker," was converted from heathenism in his youth by Origen at Caesarea, in Palestine, spent eight years in his society, and then, after a season of contemplative retreat, labored as bishop of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus from 244 to 270 with extraordinary success. He could thank God on his death-bed, that he had left to his successor no more unbelievers in his diocese than he had found Christians in it at his accession; and those were only seventeen. He must have had great missionary zeal and executive ability. He attended the Synod of Antioch in 265, which condemned Paul of Samasota.

Later story represents him as a "second Moses," and attributed extraordinary miracles to him. But these are not mentioned till a century after his time, by Gregory of Nyssa and Basil, who made him also a champion of the Nicene orthodoxy before the Council of Nicaea. Eusebius knows nothing of them, nor of his trinitarian creed which is said to have been communicated to him by a special revelation in a vision.(299) This creed is almost too Orthodox for an admiring Pupil Of Origen, and seems to presuppose the Arian controversy (especially the conclusion). It has probably been enlarged. Another and fuller creed ascribed to him, is the work of the younger Apollinaris at the end of the fourth century.(300)

Among his genuine writings is a glowing eulogy on his beloved teacher Origen, which ranks as a masterpiece of later Grecian eloquence.(301) Also a simple paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes.(302) To these must be added two books recently published in a Syriac translation, one on the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the other on the impassibility and the possibility of God.

Notes.

I. The Declaration of faith (e[kqesi" pivstew" kata; ajpokavluyin) is said to have been revealed to Gregory in a night vision by St. John, at the request of the Virgin Mary, and the autograph of it was, at the time of Gregory of Nyssa (as he says), in possession of the church of Neocaesarea. It is certainly a very remarkable document and the most explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity from the ante-Nicene age. Caspari (in his Alte und neue Quellen, etc., 1879, pp. 25–64), after an elaborate discussion, comes to the conclusion that the creed contains nothing inconsistent with a pupil of Origen, and that it was written by Gregory in opposition to Sabellianism and Paul of Samosata, and with reference to the controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome on the Trinity, between a.d. 260 and 270. But I think it more probable that it has undergone some enlargement at the close by a later hand. This is substantially also the view of Neander, and of Dorner (Entwicklungsgesch. der L. v. d. Pers. Christi, I. 735–737). The creed is at all events a very remarkable production and a Greek anticipation of the Latin Quicunque which falsely goes under the name of the "Athanasian Creed." We give the Greek with a translation. See Mansi, Conc. I. 1030 Patr. Gr. X. col. 983; Caspari, l. c.; comp. the comparative tables in Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, II. 40 and 41.

Gregory Thaumat. Declaration of Faith.

Eij" Qeo;", Path;r lovgou zw'nto", sofiva" uJfestwvsh" kai; dunavmew" kai; carakth'ro" aji>divou, tevleio" teleivou gennhvtwr, Path;r UiJou' monogenou' "

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, (who is his) subsisting Wisdom and Power and eternal Impress (lmage): perfect Begetter of the Perfect [Begotten], Father of the only begotten Son.

Ei|" Kuvrio", movno" ejk monou, qe;o" ejk qeou', carakth;r kai; eijkw;n th' " qeovthto", lovgo" ejnergov", sofiva th' " tw'n o{lwn sustavsew" periektikh; kai; duvnami" th' " o{lh" ktivsew" poihtikhv, UiJo;" ajlhqino;" ajlhqinou' Patrov", ajovrato" ajoravtou kai; a[fqarto" ajfqavrtou kai; ajqavnato" ajqanavtou kai; ajiv�dio" aji>divou

There is one Lord, Only of Only, God of God, the Image and Likeness of the Godhead, the efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the system of all things, and Power productive of the whole creation; true Son of the true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Eternal of Eternal.

Kai; e{n Pneu'ma {Agion, ejk qeou' th;n u{parxin e[con, kai; di j Uijou' pefhno;" »dhladh; toi' " ajnqrwvpoi"¼, eijkw;n tou' Uijou' teleivou teleiva, zwh;, zwvntwn aijtiva, phgh; aJgiva, aJgiovth", aJgiasmou' corhgov": ejn w/ fanerou'tai qeo;" oJ Path;r oJ ejpi pavntwn kai; ejn pa'si kai; qeo;" oj Uiov" oJ dia; pavntwn: tria;" teleiva, dovxh/ kai aji>diovthti kai; basileiva/ mh; merizomevnh mhde; ajpallotrioumevnh.

And there is one Holy Ghost, having his existence from God, and being manifested (namely, to mankind) by the Son; the perfect Likeness of the perfect Son: Life, the Cause of the living; sacred Fount; holiness, the Bestower of sanctification; in whom is revealed God the Father, who is over all things and in all things, and God the Son, who is through all things: a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and dominion, neither divided nor alien.

Ou[te ouktistovn ti h] dou'lon ejn th'/ triavdi, ou[te ejpeivsakton, wJ" provteron me;n oujc uJpavrcon, u{steron de; ejpeiselqovn: ou[te ouejnevlipev pote UiJo;" Patri;, ou[te UiJw'/ Pneu'ma ajlla; a[trepto" kai; ajnalloivwto" hJ aujth; tria;" ajeiv.

There is therefore nothing created or subservient in the Trinity, nor super-induced, as though not before existing, but introduced afterward Nor has the Son ever been wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son, but there is unvarying and unchangeable the same Trinity forever.

The Miracles ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus in the fourth century, one hundred years after his death, by the enlightened and philosophic Gregory of Nyssa, and defended in the nineteenth century by Cardinal Newman of England as credible (Two Essays on Bibl. and Eccles. Miracles. Lond. 3d ed., 1873, p. 261–270), are stupendous and surpass all that are recorded of the Apostles in the New Testament.

Gregory not only expelled demons, healed the sick, banished idols from a heathen temple, but he moved large stones by a mere word, altered the course of the Armenian river Lycus, and, like Moses of old, even dried up a lake. The last performance is thus related by St. Gregory of Nyssa: Two young brothers claimed as their patrimony the possession of a lake. (The name and location are not given.) Instead of dividing it between them, they referred the dispute to the Wonderworker, who exhorted them to be reconciled to one another. The young men however, became exasperated, and resolved upon a murderous duel, when the man of God, remaining on the banks of the lake, by the power of prayer, transformed the whole lake into dry land, and thus settled the conflict.

Deducting all these marvellous features, which the magnifying distance of one century after the death of the saint created, there remains the commanding figure of a great and good man who made a most powerful impression upon his and the subsequent generati

§ 190. Dionysius the Great.

(I.) S. Dionysii Episcopi Alexandrini quae supersunt Operum et Episto larum fragmenta, in Migne’s "Patrol. Gr." Tom. X. Col. 1237–1344 and Addenda, Col. 1575–1602. Older collections of the fragments by Simon de Magistris, Rom. 1796, and Routh, Rel. Sacr., vol. IV. 393–454. Add Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. I. 15 sqq.—English translation by Salmond in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. xx. (1871), p. 161–266.

(II.) Eusebius: H. E. III. 28; VI. 41, 45, 46; VII. 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28. Athanasius: De Sent. Dionys. Hieronym.: De Fir. ill. 69.

(III.) Th. Förster: De Doctrina et Sententiis Dionysii Magni Episcopi Alex. Berl. 1865. And in the "Zeitschrift für hist. Theol." 1871. Dr. Dittrich (R.C.): Dionysius der Grosse von Alexandrien. Freib. i. Breisg. 1867 (130 pages). Weizsäcker in Herzog² III. 61, 5 sq. Westcott in Smith and Wace I. 850 sqq.

Dionysius Of Alexandria —so distinguished from the contemporary Dionysius of Rome—surnamed "the Great,"(303) was born about a.d. 190,(304) of Gentile parents, and brought up to a secular profession with bright prospects of wealth and renown, but be examined the claims of Christianity and was won to the faith by Origen, to whom he ever remained faithful. He disputes with Gregory Thaumaturgus the honor of being the chief disciple of that great teacher; but while Gregory was supposed to have anticipated the Nicene dogma of the trinity, the orthodoxy of Dionysius was disputed. He became Origen’s assistant in the Catechetical School (233), and after the death of Heraclas bishop of Alexandria (248). During the violent persecution under Decius (249–251) he fled, and thus exposed himself, like Cyprian, to the suspicion of cowardice. In the persecution under Valerian (247), he was brought before the praefect and banished, but he continued to direct his church from exile. On the accession of Gallienus he was allowed to return (260). He died in the year 265.

His last years were disturbed by war, famine and pestilence, of which he gives a lively account in the Easter encyclical of the year 263.(305) "The present time," he writes, "does not appear a fit season for a festival ... All things are filled with tears, all are mourning, and on account of the multitudes already dead and still dying, groans are daily heard throughout the city ... There is not a house in which there is not one dead ... After this, war and famine succeeded which we endured with the heathen, but we bore alone those miseries with which they afflicted us ... But we rejoiced in the peace of Christ which he gave to us alone ... Most of our brethren by their exceeding great love and affection not sparing themselves and adhering to one another, were constantly superintending the sick, ministering to their wants without fear and cessation, and healing them in Christ." The heathen, on the contrary, repelled the sick or cast them half-dead into the street. The same self-denying charity in contrast with heathen selfishness manifested itself at Carthage during the raging of a pestilence, under the persecuting reign of Gallus (252), as we learn from Cyprian.

Dionysius took an active part in the christological, chiliastic, and disciplinary controversies of his time, and showed in them moderation, an amiable spirit of concession, and practical churchly tact, but also a want of independence and consistency. He opposed Sabellianism, and ran to the brink of tritheism, but in his correspondence with the more firm and orthodox Dionysius of Rome he modified his view, and Athanasius vindicated his orthodoxy against the charge of having sowed the seeds of Arianism. He wished to adhere to Origen’s christology, but the church pressed towards the Nicene formula. There is nothing, however, in the narrative of Athanasius which implies a recognition of Roman supremacy. His last christological utterance was a letter concerning the heresy of Paul of Samosata; he was prevented from attending the Synod of Antioch in 264, which condemned and deposed Paul. He rejected, with Origen, the chiliastic notions, and induced Nepos and his adherents to abandon them, but he denied the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse and ascribed it to the "Presbyter John," of doubtful existence. He held mild views on discipline and urged the Novatians to deal gently with the lapsed and to preserve the peace of the church. He also counselled moderation in the controversy between Stephen and Cyprian on the validity of heretical baptism, though he sided with the more liberal Roman theory.

Dionysius wrote many letters and treatises on exegetic, polemic, and ascetic topics, but only short fragments remain, mostly in Eusebius. The chief books were Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and Luke; Against Sabellius (christological); On Nature (philosophical); On the Promises (against Chiliasm): On Martyrdom. He compared the style of the fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse to deny the identity of authorship, but he saw only the difference and not the underlying unity.(306) "All the fragments of Dionysius," says Westcott, "repay careful perusal. They are uniformly inspired by the sympathy and large-heartedness which he showed in practice."

Dionysius is commemorated in the Greek church on October 3, in the Roman on November 17.

§ 191. Julius Africanus.

(I.) The fragments in Routh: Rel. Sacr. II. 221–509. Also in Gallandi, Tom. II., and Migne, "Patr. Gr., " Tom. X. Col. 35–108.

(II.) Eusebius: H. E. VI. 31. Jerome: De Vir. ill. 63. Socrates: H. E. II. 35. Photius: Bibl. 34.

(III.) Fabricius: "Bibl. Gr." IV. 240 (ed. Harles). G. Salmon in Smith and Wace I. 53–57. Ad. Harnack in Herzog² VII. 296–298. Also Pauly’s "Real-Encykl." V. 501 sq.; Nicolai’s "Griech. Lit. Gesch." II. 584; and Smith’s "Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biogr." I. 56 sq.

Julius Africanus,(307) the first Christian chronographer and universal historian, an older friend of Origen, lived in the first half of the second century at Emmaus (Nicopolis), in Palestine,(308) made journeys to Alexandria, where he heard the lectures of Heraclas, to Edessa, Armenia and Phrygia, and was sent on an embassy to Rome in behalf of the rebuilding of Emmaus which had been ruined (221). He died about a.d. 240 in old age. He was not an ecclesiastic, as far as we know, but a philosopher who pursued his favorite studies after his conversion and made them useful to the church. He may have been a presbyter, but certainly not a bishop.(309) He was the forerunner of Eusebius, who in his Chronicle has made copious use of his learned labor and hardly gives him sufficient credit, although he calls his chronography "a most accurate and labored performance." He was acquainted with Hebrew. Socrates classes him for learning with Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

His chief work is his chronography, in five books. It commenced with the creation (B. C. 5499) and came down to the year 221, the fourth year of Elagabalus. It is the foundation of the mediaeval historiography of the world and the church. We have considerable fragments of it and can restore it in part from the Chronicle of Eusebius. A satisfactory estimate of its merits requires a fuller examination of the Byzantine and oriental chronography of the church than has hitherto been made. Earlier writers were concerned to prove the antiquity of the Christian religion against the heathen charge of novelty by tracing it back to Moses and the prophets who were older than the Greek philosophers and poets. But Africanus made the first attempt at a systematic chronicle of sacred and profane history. He used as a fixed point the accession of Cyrus, which he placed Olymp. 55, 1, and then counting backwards in sacred history, he computed 1237 years between the exodus and the end of the seventy years’ captivity or the first year of Cyrus. He followed the Septuagint chronology, placed the exodus A. M. 3707, and counted 740 years between the exodus and Solomon. He fixed the Lord’s birth in A. M. 5500, and 10 years before our Dionysian era, but he allows only one year’s public ministry and thus puts the crucifixion A. M. 5531. He makes the 31 years of the Saviour’s life the complement of the 969 years of Methuselah. He understood the 70 weeks of Daniel to be 490 lunar years, which are equivalent to 475 Julian years. He treats the darkness at the crucifixion as miraculous, since an eclipse of the sun could not have taken place at the full moon.

Another work of Africanus, called Cesti (Kestoi;) or Variegated Girdles, was a sort of universal scrap-book or miscellaneous collection of information on geography, natural history, medicine, agriculture, war, and other subjects of a secular character. Only fragments remain. Some have unnecessarily denied his authorship on account of the secular contents of the book, which was dedicated to the Emperor Alexander Severus.

Eusebius mentions two smaller treatises of Africanus, a letter to Origen, "in which he intimates his doubts on the history of Susanna, in Daniel, as if it were a spurious and fictitious composition," and "a letter to Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke, in which he most clearly establishes the consistency of the two evangelists, from an account which had been handed down from his ancestors."

The letter to Origen is still extant and takes a prominent rank among the few specimens of higher criticism in the literature of the ancient church. He urges the internal improbabilities of the story of Susanna, its omission from the Hebrew canon, the difference of style as compared with the canonical Daniel, and a play on Greek words which shows that it was originally written in Greek, not in Hebrew. Origen tried at great length to refute these objections, and one of his arguments is that it would be degrading to Christians to go begging to the Jews for the unadulterated Scriptures.

The letter to Aristides on the genealogies solves the difficulty by assuming that Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. It exists in fragments, from which F. Spitta has recently reconstructed it.(310)

§ 192. Minor Divines of the Greek Church.

A number of divines of the third century, of great reputation in their day, mostly of Egypt and of the school of Origen, deserve a brief mention, although only few fragments of their works have survived the ravages of time.

I. Heraclas and his brother Plutarch (who afterwards died a martyr) were the oldest distinguished converts and pupils of Origen, and older than their teacher. Heraclas had even before him studied the New-platonic philosophy under Ammonius Saccas. He was appointed assistant of Origen, and afterwards his successor in the Catechetical School. After the death of Demetrius, the jealous enemy of Origen, Heraclas was elected bishop of Alexandria and continued in that high office sixteen years (A. D. 233–248). We know nothing of his administration, nor of his writings. He either did not adopt the speculative opinions of Origen, or prudently concealed them, at least he did nothing to recall his teacher from exile. He was succeeded by Dionysius the Great. Eusebius says that he was "devoted to the study of the Scriptures and a most learned man, not unacquainted with philosophy," but is silent about his conduct to Origen during and after his trial for heresy.(311)

Among the successors of Heraclas and Dionysius in the Catechetical School was Theognostus, not mentioned by Eusebius, but by Athanasius and Photius. We have from him a brief fragment on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and a few extracts from his Hypotyposeis (Adumbrations).(312)
Pierius probably, succeeded Theognostus while Theonas was bishop of Alexandria (d. 300), and seems to have outlived the Diocletian persecution. He was the teacher of Pamphilus, and called "the younger Origen."(313)
Pamphilus, a great admirer of Origen, a presbyter and theological teacher at Caesarea in Palestine, and a martyr of the persecution of Maximinus (309), was not an author himself, but one of the most liberal and efficient promoters of Christian learning. He did invaluable service to future generations by founding a theological school and collecting a large library, from which his pupil and friend Eusebius (hence called "Eusebius Pampili "), Jerome, and many others, drew or increased their useful information. Without that library the church history of Eusebius would be far less instructive than it is now. Pamphilus transcribed with his own hand useful books, among others the Septuagint from the Hexapla of Origen.(314) He aided poor students, and distributed the Scriptures. While in prison, he wrote a defense of Origen, which was completed by Eusebius in six books, but only the first remains in the Latin version of Rufinus, whom Jerome charges with wilful alterations. It is addressed to the confessors who were condemned to the mines of Palestine, to assure them of the orthodoxy of Origen from his own writings, especially on the trinity and the person of Christ.(315)

V. Peter, pupil and successor of Theonas, was bishop ofAlexandria since a.d. 300, lived during the terrible times of the Diocletian persecution, and was beheaded by order of Maximinus in 311. He held moderate views on the restoration of the lapsed, and got involved in the Meletian schism which engaged much of the attention of the Council of Nicaea. Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, taking advantage of Peter’s flight from persecution, introduced himself into his diocese, and assumed the character of primate of Egypt, but was deposed by Peter in 306 for insubordination. We have from Peter fifteen canons on discipline, and a few homiletical fragments in which he rejects Origen’s views of the pre-existence and ante-mundane fall of the soul as heathenish, and contrary to the Scripture account of creation. This dissent would place him among the enemies of Origen, but Eusebius makes no allusion to it, and praises him for piety, knowledge of the Scriptures, and wise administration.(316)

Hieracas (Hierax), from Leontopolis in Egypt, towards the end of the third century, belongs only in a wider sense to the Alexandrian school, and perhaps had no connexion with it at all. Epiphanius reckons him among the Manichaean heretics. He was, at all events, a perfectly original phenomenon, distinguished for his varied learning, allegorical exegesis, poetical talent, and still more for his eccentric asceticism. Nothing is left of the works which he wrote in the Greek and Egyptian languages. He is said to have denied the historical reality of the fall and the resurrection of the body, and to have declared celibacy the only sure way to salvation, or at least to the highest degree of blessedness. His followers were called Hieracitae.(317)

§ 193. Opponents of Origen. Methodius

(I.) Meqodivou ejpiskovpou kai; mavrturo" ta; euJriskovmena pavnta. In Gallandi’s "Vet. Patr. Biblioth." Tom. III.; in Migne’s "Patrol. Gr." Tom. XVIII. Col. 9–408; and by A. Jahn (S. Methodii Opera, et S. Methodius Platonizans, Hal. 1865, 2 pts.). The first ed. was publ. by Combefis, 1644, and more completely in 1672. English translation in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Libr.," vol. XIV. (Edinb. 1869.)

Hieronymus: De Viris ill. 83, and in several of his Epp. and Comment. Epiphanius: Haer. 64. Socrates: H. E. VI. 31. Photius: Bibl. 234–237.

Eusebius is silent about Method., perhaps because of his opposition to Origen; while Photius, perhaps for the same reason, pays more attention to him than to Origen, whose De Principiis he pronounces blasphemous, Bibl 8. Gregory of Nyssa, Arethas, Leontius Byzantius, Maximus, the Martyrologium Romanum (XIV. Kal. Oct.) and the Menologium Graecum (ad diem 20 Junii), make honorable mention of him.

(III.) Leo Allatius: Diatribe de Methodiorum Scriptis, in his ed. of the Convivium in 1656. Fabric." Bibl. Gr.," ed. Harles, VII. 260 sqq. W. Möller in Herzog², IX. 724–726. (He discusses especially the relation of Methodius to Origen.) G. Salmon in Smith and Wace, III. 909–911.

The opposition of Demetrius to Origen proceeded chiefly from personal feeling, and had no theological significance. Yet it made a pretext at least of zeal for orthodoxy, and in subsequent opponents this motive took the principal place. This was the case, so early as the third century, with Methodius, who may be called a forerunner of Epiphanius in his orthodox war against Origen, but with this difference that he was much more moderate, and that in other respects he seems to have been an admirer of Plato whom he imitated in the dramatic dress of composition, and of Origen whom he followed in his allegorical method of interpretation. He occupied the position of Christian realism against the speculative idealism of the Alexandrian teacher.

Methodius (also called Eubulius) was bishop first of Olympus and then of Patara (both in the province of Lycia, Asia Minor on the southern coast), and died a martyr in 311 or earlier in the Diocletian persecution.(318)

His principal work is his Symposium or Banquet of Ten Virgins.(319) It is an eloquent but verbose and extravagant eulogy on the advantages and blessings of voluntary virginity, which he describes as "something supernaturally great, wonderful, and glorious," and as "the best and noblest manner of life." It was unknown before Christ (the ajrcipavrqeno"). At first men were allowed to marry sisters, then came polygamy, the next progress was monogamy, with continence, but the perfect state is celibacy for the kingdom of Christ, according to his mysterious hint in Matt. 19:12, the recommendation of Paul, 1 Cor. 7:1, 7, 34, 40, and the passage in Revelation 14:1–4, where "a hundred and forty-four thousand virgins" are distinguished from the innumerable multitude of other saints (7:9).

The literary form is interesting. The ten virgins are, of course, suggested by the parable in the gospel. The conception of the Symposium and the dialogue are borrowed from Plato, who celebrated the praises of Eros, as Methodius the praises of virginity. Methodius begins with a brief dialogue between Eubulios and Eubuloin (i.e. himself) and the virgin Gregorion who was present at a banquet of the ten virgins in the gardens of Arete (i.e. personified virtue) and reports to him ten discourses which these virgins successively delivered in praise of chastity. At the end of the banquet the victorious Thecla, chief of the virgins (St. Paul’s apocryphal companion), standing on the right hand of Arete, begins to sing a hymn of chastity to which the virgins respond with the oft-repeated refrain,

I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom,

And holding a lighted torch, I go to meet Thee."(320)

Then follows a concluding dialogue between Eubulios and Gregorion on the question, whether chastity ignorant of lust is preferable to chastity which feels the power of passion and overcomes it, in other words, whether a wrestler who has no opponents is better than a wrestler who has many and strong antagonists and continually contends against them without being worsted. Both agree in giving the palm to the latter, and then they betake themselves to "the care of the outward man," expecting to resume the delicate discussion on the next day.

The taste and morality of virgins discussing at great length the merits of sexual purity are very questionable, at least from the standpoint of modern civilization, but the enthusiastic praise of chastity to the extent of total abstinence was in full accord with the prevailing asceticism of the fathers, including Origen, who freed himself from carnal temptation by an act of violence against nature.

The work On the Resurrection, likewise in the form of a dialogue, and preserved in large extracts by Epiphanius and Photius, was directed against Origen and his views on creation, pre-existence, and the immateriality of the resurrection body. The orthodox speakers (Eubulios and Auxentios) maintain that the soul cannot sin without the body, that the body is not a fetter of the soul, but its inseparable companion and an instrument for good as well is evil, and that the earth will not be destroyed, but purified and transformed into a blessed abode for the risen saints. In a book On Things Created(321) he refutes Origen’s view of the eternity of the world, who thought it necessary to the conception of God as an Almighty Creator and Ruler, and as the unchangeable Being.

The Dialogue On Free Will(322) treats of the origin of matter, and strongly resembles a work on that subject (peri; th'" u{lh") of which Eusebius gives an extract and which he ascribes to Maximus, a writer from the close of the second century.(323)

Other works of Methodius, mentioned by Jerome, are: Against Porphyry (10, 000 lines); Commentaries on Genesis and Canticles; De Pythonissa (on the witch of Endor, against Origen’s view that Samuel was laid under the power of Satan when he evoked her by magical art). A Homily for Palm Sunday, and a Homily on the Cross are also assigned to him. But there were several Methodii among the patristic writers.

§ 194. Lucian of Antioch.

(I.) Luciani Fragmenta in Routh, Rel. s. IV. 3–17.

(II.) Euseb. H. E. VIII. 13; IX. 6 (and Rufinus’s Eus. IX. 6). Hier De Vir. ill. 77, and in other works. Socrat.: H. E. II. 10. Sozom.: H. E. III. 5. Epiphan.: Ancoratus, c. 33. Theodor.: H. E. I. 3. Philostorgius: H. E., II. 14, 15. Chrysostom’s Hom. in Lucian, (in Opera ed. Montfaucon, T. II. 524 sq; Migne, "Patr. Gr." I. 520 sqq.) Ruinart: Acta Mart., p. 503 sq.

(III.) Acta Sanct. Jan. VII. 357 sq. Baron. Ann. ad Ann. 311. Brief notices in Tillemont, Cave, Fabricius, Neander, Gieseler, Hefele (Conciliengesch. vol. I). Harnack: Luc. der Märt. in Herzog, VIII. (1881), pp. 767–772. J. T. Stokes, in Smith & Wace, III., 748 and 749.

On his textual labors see the critical Introductions to the Bible.

I. Lucian was an eminent presbyter of Antioch and martyr of the Diocletian persecution, renewed by Maximin. Very little is known of him. He was transported from Antioch to Nicomedia, where the emperor then resided, made a noble confession of his faith before the judge and died under the tortures in prison (311). His memory was celebrated in Antioch on the 7th of January. His piety was of the severely ascetic type.

His memory was obscured by the suspicion of unsoundness in the faith. Eusebius twice mentions him and his glorious martyrdom, but is silent about his theological opinions. Alexander of Alexandria, in an encyclical of 321, associates him with Paul of Samosata and makes him responsible for the Arian heresy; he also says that he was excommunicated or kept aloof from the church (ajposunavgwgo" e[meine) during the episcopate of Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus; intimating that his schismatic condition ceased before his death. The charge brought against him and his followers is that he denied the eternity of the Logos and the human soul of Christ (the Logos taking the place of the rational soul). Arius and the Arians speak of him as their teacher. On the other hand Pseudo-Athanasius calls him a great and holy martyr, and Chrysostom preached a eulogy on him Jan. 1, 387. Baronius defends his orthodoxy, other Catholics deny it.(324) Some distinguished two Lucians, one orthodox, and one heretical; but this is a groundless hypothesis.

The contradictory reports are easily reconciled by the assumption that Lucian was a critical scholar with some peculiar views on the Trinity and Christology which were not in harmony with the later Nicene orthodoxy, but that he wiped out all stains by his heroic confession and martyrdom.(325)

The creed which goes by his name and was found after his death, is quite orthodox as far as it goes, and was laid with three similar creeds before the Synod of Antioch held a.d. 341, with the intention of being substituted for the Creed of Nicaea.(326) It resembles the creed of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, is strictly trinitarian and acknowledges Jesus Christ "as the Son of God, the only begotten God,(327) through whom all things were made, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Whole of Whole, One of One, Perfect of Perfect, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the living Word, Wisdom, Life, True Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, unchangeable and unalterable, the immutable Likeness of the Godhead, both of the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, the first-born of all creation,(328) who was in the beginning with God, the Divine Logos, according to what is said in the Gospel: ’And the Word was God (John 1:1), through whom all things were made’ (ver. 3), and in whom ’all things consist’ (Col. 1:17): who in the last days came down from above, and was born of a Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, the Mediator between God and man, etc.(329)
Lucianus is known also by his critical revision of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek Testament. Jerome mentions that copies were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea," but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian, and of Hesychius, a bishop of Egypt (who distinguished himself in the same field). In the absence of definite information it is impossible to decide the merits of his critical labors. His Hebrew scholarship is uncertain, and hence we do not know whether his revision of the Septuagint was made from the original.(330)

As to the New Testament, it is likely that he contributed much towards the Syrian recension (if we may so call it), which was used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus.(331)

§ 195. The Antiochian School.

Kihn (R.C.): Die Bedeutung der antioch. Schule. Weissenburg, 1856.

C. Hornung: Schola Antioch. Neostad. ad S. 1864.

Jos. Hergenröther. (Cardinal): Die Antioch. Schule. Würzb. 1866.

Diestel: Gesch. des A. Test. in, der christl. Kirche. Jena, 1869 (pp. 126–141).

W. Möller in Herzog,² I. 454–457.

Lucian is the reputed founder of the Antiochian School of theology, which was more fully developed in the fourth century. He shares this honor with his friend Dorotheus, likewise a presbyter of Antioch, who is highly spoken of by Eusebius as a biblical scholar acquainted with Hebrew.(332) But the real founders of that school are Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus (c. a.d. 379–394), and Theodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia (393–428), both formerly presbyters of Antioch.

The Antiochian School was not a regular institution with a continuous succession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis which had its centre in Antioch. The characteristic features are, attention to the revision of the text, a close adherence to the plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and justice to the human factor. In other words, its exegesis is grammatical and historical, in distinction from the allegorical method of the Alexandrian School. Yet, as regards textual criticism, Lucian followed in the steps of Origen. Nor did the Antiochians disregard the spiritual sense, and the divine element in the Scriptures. The grammatico-historical exegesis is undoubtedly the only safe and sound basis for the understanding of the Scriptures as of any other book; and it is a wholesome check upon the wild licentiousness of the allegorizing method which often substitutes imposition for exposition. But it may lead to different results in different hands, according to the spirit of the interpreter. The Arians and Nestorians claimed descent from, or affinity with, Lucian and his school; but from the same school proceeded also the prince of commentators among the fathers, John Chrysostom, the eulogist of Lucian and Diodorus, and the friend and fellow student of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodoret followed in the same line.

After the condemnation of Nestorius, the Antiochian theology continued to be cultivated at Nisibis and Edessa among the Nestorians.

Notes.

Cardinal Newman, when still an Anglican (in his book on Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 414) made the Syrian School of biblical criticism responsible for the Arian heresy, and broadly maintained that the "mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together." But Cardinal Hergenröther, who is as good a Catholic and a better scholar, makes a proper distinction between use and abuse, and gives the following fair and discriminating statement of the relation between the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools, and the critical and mystical method of interpretation to which a Protestant historian can fully assent. (Handbuch der allgem. Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg i. B. 2nd ed. 1879, vol. I. p. 281.)

"Die Schule von Antiochien hatte bald den Glanz der Alexandrinischen erreicht, ja sogar überstrahlt. Beide konnten sich vielfach ergänzen, da jede ihre eigenthümliche Entwicklung, Haltung und Methode hatte, konnten aber auch eben wegen iherer Verschiedenheit leicht unter sich in Kampf und auf Abwege von der Kirchenlehre gerathen. Während bei den Alexandrinern eine speculativ-intuitive, zum Mystischen sich hinneigende Richtung hervortrat, war bei den Antiochenern eine logisch-reflectirende, durchaus nüchterne Verstandesrichtung vorherrschend. Während jene enge an die platonische Philosophie sich anschlossen und zwar vorherrschend in der Gestalt, die sie unter dem hellenistischen Juden Philo gewonnen hatte, waren die Antiochener einem zum Stoicismus hinneigenden Eklekticismus, dann der Aristotelischen Schule ergeben, deren scharfe Dialektik ganz ihrem Geiste zusagte. Demgemäss wurde in der alexandrinischen Schule, vorzugsweise die allegorisch-mystische Erklärung der heiligen Schrift gepflegt, in der Antiochenischen dagegen die buchstäbliche, grammatisch-logische und historische Interpretation, ohne dass desshalb der mystische Sinn und insbesondere die Typen des Alten Bundes gänzlich in Abrede gestellt worden wären. Die Origenisten suchen die Unzulänglichkeit des blossen buchstäblichen Sinnes und die Nothwendigkeit der allegorischen Auslegung nachzuweisen, da der Wortlaut vieler biblischen Stellen Falsches, Widersprechendes, Gottes Unwürdiges ergebe; sie fehlten hier durch das Uebermass des Allegorisirens und durch Verwechslung der figürlichen Redeweisen, die dem Literalsinne angehören, mit der mystischen Deutung; sie verflüchtigten oft den historischen Gehalt der biblischen Erzählung, hinter deren äusserer Schale sie einen verborgenen Kern suchen zu müssen glaubten. Damit stand ferner in Verbindung, dass in der alexandrinischen Schule das Moment des Uebervernünftigen, Unausprechlichen, Geheimnissvollen in den göttlichen Dingen stark betont wurde, während die Antiochener vor Allem das Vernunftgemässe, dem menschlichen Geiste Entsprechende in den Dogmen hervorhoben, das Christenthum als eine das menschliche Denken befriedligende Wahrheit nachzuweisen suchten. Indem sie aber dieses Streben verfolgten, wollten die hervorragen den Lehrer der antiochenischen Schule keineswegs den übernatürlichen Charakter und die Mysterien der Kirchenlehre bestreiten, sie erkannten diese in der Mehrzahl an, wie Chrysotomus und Theodoret; aber einzelne Gelehrte konnten über dem Bemühen, die Glaubenslehren leicht verständlich und begreiflich zu machen, ihren Inhalt verunstalten und zerstören."

§ 196. Tertullian and the African School.

Comp. the liter. on Montanism, §109, p. 415.

(I.) Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia. Ed. Franc. Oehler. Lips. 1853, 3 vols. The third vol. contains dissertations De Vita et Scriptis Tert. by Nic. Le Nourry, Mosheim, Noesselt, Semler, Kaye. Earlier editions by Beatus Rhenanus, Bas. 1521; Pamelius, Antwerp, 1579; Rigaltius (Rigault), Par. 1634 and Venet. 1744; Semler, Halle, 1770–3. 6 vols.; Oberthür, 1780; Leopold, in Gersdorf’s "Biblioth. patrum Eccles. Latinorum selecta"(IV-VII.), Lips. 1839–41; and Migne, Par. I 1884. A new ed. by Reifferscheid will appear in the Vienna "Corpus Scriptorum Eccles. Lat."

English transl. by P. Holmes and others in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library," Edinb. 1868 sqq. 4 vols. German translation by K. A. H. Kellner. Köln, 1882, 2 vols.

(II.) Euseb. H. G. II. 2, 25; III. 20; V. 5. Jerome: De Viris Ill.c.53.

(III.) Neander: Antignosticus, Geist des Tertullianus u. Einleitung in dessen Schriften. Berl. 1825, 2d ed. 1849.

J. Kaye: Eccles. Hist. of the second and third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian. 3d ed. Lond. 1845.

Carl Hesselberg: Tertullian’s Lehre aus seinen Schriften entwickelt. 1. Th. Leben und Schriften. Dorpat 1848 (136 pages).

P. Gottwald: De Montanismo Tertulliani. Breslau, 1863.

Hermann Rönsch: Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s. Leipz. 1871 (731 pages.) A reconstruction of the text of the old Latin version of the N. T. from the writings of Tertullian.

Ad. Ebert: Gesch. der Christl. lat. Lit. Leipz. 1874, sqq. I. 24–41.

A. Hauck: Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877 (410 pages.) With judicious extracts from all his writings.

(IV.) On the chronology of Tertullian’s works see Noesselt: De vera aetate et doctrina Scriptorum Tertull. (in Oehler’s ed. III. 340–619); Uhlhorn: Fundamenta Chronologica Tertullianeae (Göttingen 1852); Bonwetsch: Die Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfassung (Bonn 1879, 89 pages); Harnack: Zur Chronologie der Schriften Tertullians (Leipz. 1878); Noeldechen: Abfassungszeit der Schriften Tertullians (Leipz. 1888).

(V.) On special points: oehninger: Tertullian und seine Auferstehungslehre Augsb. 1878, 34 pp). F. J. Schmidt: De Latinitate Tertutliani (Erlang. 1877). M. Klussmann: Curarum Tertullianearum, part. I et II. (Halle 1881). G. R. Hauschild: Tertullian’s Psychologie (Frankf. a. M. 1880, 78 pp.). By the same: Die Grundsätze u. Mittel der Wortbildung bei Tertullian (Leipz. 1881, 56 pp); Ludwig.: Tert’s Ethik. (Leipz. 1885). Special treatises on Tertullian, by Hefele, Engelhardt, Leopold, Schaff (in Herzog), Ebert, Kolberg.

The Western church in this period exhibits no such scientific productiveness as the Eastern. The apostolic church was predominantly Jewish, the ante-Nicene church, Greek, the post-Nicene, Roman. The Roman church itself was first predominantly Greek, and her earliest writers—Clement, Hermas, Irenaeus, Hippolytus—wrote exclusively in Greek. Latin Christianity begins to appear in literature at the end of the second century, and then not in Italy, but in North Africa, not in Rome, but in Carthage, and very characteristically, not with converted speculative philosophers, but with practical lawyers and rhetoricians. This literature does not gradually unfold itself, but appears at once under a fixed, clear stamp, with a strong realistic tendency. North Africa also gave to the Western church the fundamental book—the Bible in its first Latin Version, the so-called Itala, and this was the basis of Jerome’s Vulgata which to this day is the recognized standard Bible of Rome. There were, however, probably several Latin versions of portions of the Bible current in the West before Jerome.

I. Life of Tertullian.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is the father of the Latin theology and church language, and one of the greatest men of Christian antiquity. We know little of his life but what is derived from his book and from the brief notice of Jerome in his catalogue of illustrious men. But few writers have impressed their individuality so strongly in their books as this African father. In this respect, as well as in others, he resembles St. Paul, and Martin Luther. He was born about the year 150, at Carthage, the ancient rival of Rome, where his father was serving as captain of a Roman legion under the proconsul of Africa. He received a liberal Graeco-Roman education; his writings manifest an extensive acquaintance with historical, philosophical, poetic, and antiquarian literature, and with juridical terminology and all the arts of an advocate. He seems to have devoted himself to politics and forensic eloquence, either in Carthage or in Rome. Eusebius calls him "a man accurately acquainted with the Roman laws,"(333) and many regard him as identical with the Tertyllus, or Tertullianus, who is the author of several fragments in the Pandects.

To his thirtieth or fortieth year he lived in heathen blindness and licentiousness.(334) Towards the end of the second century be embraced Christianity, we know not exactly on what occasion, but evidently from deepest conviction, and with all the fiery energy of his soul; defended it henceforth with fearless decision against heathens, Jews, and heretics; and studied the strictest morality of life. His own words may be applied to himself: "Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani." He was married, and gives us a glowing picture of Christian family life, to which we have before referred; but in his zeal for every form of self-denial, he set celibacy still higher, and advised his wife, in case he should die before her to remain a widow, or, at least never to marry an unbelieving husband; and he afterwards put second marriage even on a level with adultery. He entered the ministry of the Catholic church,(335) first probably in Carthage, perhaps in Rome, where at all events he spent some time(336) but, like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, he never rose above the rank of presbyter.

Some years after, between 199 and 203, he joined the puritanic, though orthodox, sect of the Montanists. Jerome attributes this change to personal motives, charging it to the envy and insults of the Roman clergy, from whom he himself experienced many an indignity.(337) But Tertullian was inclined to extremes from the first, especially to moral austerity. He was no doubt attracted by the radical contempt for the world, the strict asceticism, the severe discipline, the martyr enthusiasm, and the chiliasm of the Montanists, and was repelled by the growing conformity to the world in the Roman church, which just at that period, under Zephyrinus and Callistus, openly took under its protection a very lax penitential discipline, and at the same time, though only temporarily, favored the Patripassian error of Praxeas, an opponent of the Montanists. Of this man Tertullian therefore says, in his sarcastic way: He has executed in Rome two works of the devil; has driven out prophecy (the Montanistic) and brought in heresy (the Patripassian); has turned off the Holy Ghost and crucified the Father.(338) Tertullian now fought the catholics, or the psychicals, is he frequently calls them, with the same inexorable sternness with which he had combated the heretics. The departures of the Montanists, however, related more to points of morality and discipline than of doctrine; and with all his hostility to Rome, Tertullian remained a zealous advocate of the catholic faith, and wrote, even from his schismatic position, several of his most effective works against the heretics, especially the Gnostics. Indeed, as a divine, he stood far above this fanatical sect, and gave it by his writings an importance and an influence in the church itself which it certainly would never otherwise have attained.

He labored in Carthage as a Montanist presbyter and an author, and died, as Jerome says, in decrepit old age, according to some about the year 220, according to others not till 240; for the exact time, as well as the manner of his death, are unknown. His followers in Africa propagated themselves, under the name of "Tertullianists," down to the time of Augustin in the fifth century, and took perhaps a middle place between the proper Montanists and the catholic church. That he ever returned into the bosom of Catholicism is an entirely groundless opinion.

Strange that this most powerful defender of old catholic orthodoxy and the teacher of the high-churchly Cyprian, should have been a schismatic and all antagonist of Rome. But he had in his constitution the tropical fervor and acerbity of the Punic character, and that bold spirit of independence in which his native city of Carthage once resisted, through more than a hundred years’ war,(339) the rising power of the seven-hilled city on the Tiber. He truly represents the African church, in which a similar antagonism continued to reveal itself, not only among the Donatists, but even among the leading advocates of Catholicism. Cyprian died at variance with Rome on the question of heretical baptism; and Augustin, with all his great services to the catholic system of faith, became at the same time, through the anti-Peligian doctrines of sin and grace, the father of evangelical Protestantism and of semi-Protestant Jansenism.

Hippolytus presents several interesting points of contact. He was a younger contemporary of Tertullian though they never met is far as we know. Both were champions of catholic orthodoxy against heresy, and yet both opposed to Rome. Hippolytus charged two popes with heresy as well as laxity of discipline; and yet in view of his supposed repentance and martyrdom (as reported by Prudentius nearly two hundred years afterwards), he canonized in the Roman church; while such honor was never conferred upon the African, though he was a greater and more useful man.

Character. Tertullian was a rare genius, perfectly original and fresh, but angular, boisterous and eccentric; full of glowing fantasy, pointed wit, keen discernment, polemic dexterity, and moral earnestness, but wanting in clearness, moderation, and symmetrical development. He resembled a foaming mountain torrent rather than a calm, transparent river in the valley. His vehement temper was never fully subdued, although he struggled sincerely against it.(340) He was a man of strong convictions, and never hesitated to express them without fear or favor.

Like almost all great men, he combined strange contrarieties of character. Here we are again reminded of Luther; though the reformer had nothing of the ascetic gloom and rigor of the African father, and exhibits instead with all his gigantic energy, a kindly serenity and childlike simplicity altogether foreign to the latter. Tertullian dwells enthusiastically on the divine foolishness of the gospel, and has a sublime contempt for the world, for its science and its art; and yet his writings are a mine of antiquarian knowledge, and novel, striking, and fruitful ideas. He calls the Grecian philosophers the patriarchs of all heresies, and scornfully asks: "What has the academy to do with the church? what has Christ to do with Plato—Jerusalem with Athens?" He did not shrink from insulting the greatest natural gift of God to man by his "Credo quia absurdum est." And yet reason does him invaluable service against his antagonists.(341) He vindicates the principle of church authority and tradition with great force and ingenuity against all heresy; yet, when a Montanist, he claims for himself with equal energy the right of private judgment and of individual protest.(342) He has a vivid sense of the corruption of human nature and the absolute need of moral regeneration; yet he declares the soul to be born Christian, and unable to find rest except in Christ. "The testimonies of the soul, says he, "are as true as they are simple; as simple as they are popular; as popular as they are natural; as natural as they are divine." He is just the opposite of the genial, less vigorous, but more learned and comprehensive Origen. He adopts the strictest supranatural principles; and yet he is a most decided realist, and attributes body, that is, as it were, a corporeal, tangible substantiality, even to God and to the soul; while the idealistic Alexandrian cannot speak spiritually enough of God, and can conceive the human soul without and before the existence of the body. Tertullian’s theology revolves about the great Pauline antithesis of sin and grace, and breaks the road to the Latin anthropology and soteriology afterwards developed by his like-minded, but clearer, calmer, and more considerate countryman, Augustin. For his opponents, be they heathens, Jews, heretics, or Catholics, he has as little indulgence and regard as Luther. With the adroitness of a special pleader he entangles them in self-contradictions, pursues them into every nook and corner, overwhelms them with arguments, sophisms, apophthegms, and sarcasms, drives them before him with unmerciful lashings, and almost always makes them ridiculous and contemptible. His polemics everywhere leave marks of blood. It is a wonder that he was not killed by the heathens, or excommunicated by the Catholics.

His style is exceedingly characteristic, and corresponds with his thought. It is terse, abrupt, laconic, sententious, nervous, figurative, full of hyperbole, sudden turns, legal technicalities, African provincialisms, or rather antiquated or vulgar latinisms.(343) It abounds in latinized Greek words, and new expressions, in roughnesses, angles, and obscurities; sometimes, like a grand volcanic eruption, belching precious stones and dross in strange confusion; or like the foaming torrent tumbling over the precipice of rocks and sweeping all before it. His mighty spirit wrestles with the form, and breaks its way through the primeval forest of nature’s thinking. He had to create the church language of the Latin tongue.(344)

In short, we see in this remarkable man both intellectually and morally, the fermenting of a new creation, but not yet quite set free from the bonds of chaotic darkness and brought into clear and beautiful order.

Notes.

I. Gems from Tertullian’s writings.

The philosophy of persecution:

"Semen Est Sanguis Christianorum." (Apol. c. 50.)

The human soul and Christianity (made for Christ, yet requiring a new birth):

"Testimonium Animae Naturaliter. Christianae." (De Test. Anim. c. 2; see the passages quoted § 40, p. 120.)

"Fiunt, non, nascuntur Christiani." (Apol. 18. De Test. Anim. 1)

Christ the Truth, not Habit (versus traditionalism):

"Christus Veritas Est, Non Consuetudo." (De Virg. vel 1.)

General priesthood of the laity (versus an exclusive hierarchy):

"Nonne Et Laici Sacerdotes Sumus? "(De Exhort. Cast. 7.)

Religious Liberty, an inalienable right of man (versus compulsion and persecution:

"Humani Juris Et Naturalis Potestatis Est Unicuique Quod Putaverit Colere." (Ad Scap. 2; comp. Apol. 14 and the passages quoted § 13, p. 35.)

Dr. Baur (Kirchengesch.I. 428) says: "It is remarkable how already the oldest Christian Apologists, in vindicating the Christian faith, were led to assert the Protestant principle of freedom of faith and conscience "[and we must add, of public worship], "as an inherent attribute of the conception of religion against their heathen opponents." Then he quotes Tertullian, as the first who gave clear expression to this principle.

Estimates of Tertullian as a man and an author.

Neander (Ch. Hist. I. 683 sq., Torrey’s translation): "Tertullian presents special claims to attention, both as the first representative of the theological tendency in the North-African church, and as a representative of the Montanistic mode of thinking. He was a man of an ardent and profound spirit, of warm and deep feelings; inclined to give himself up, with his whole soul and strength, to the object of his love, and sternly to repel everything that was foreign from this. He possessed rich and various stores of knowledge; which had been accumulated, however, at random, and without scientific arrangement. His profoundness of thought was not united with logical clearness and sobriety: an ardent, unbridled imagination, moving in a world of sensuous images, governed him. His fiery and passionate disposition, and his previous training as an advocate and rhetorician, easily impelled him, especially in controversy, to rhetorical exaggerations. When he defends a cause, of whose truth he was convinced, we often see in him the advocate, whose sole anxiety is to collect together all the arguments which can help his case, it matters not whether they are true arguments or only plausible sophisms; and in such cases the very exuberance of his wit sometimes leads him astray from the simple feeling of truth. What must render this man a phenomenon presenting special claims to the attention of the Christian historian is the fact, that Christianity is the inspiring soul of his life and thoughts; that out of Christianity an entirely new and rich inner world developed itself to his mind: but the leaven of Christianity had first to penetrate through and completely refine that fiery, bold and withal rugged nature. We find the new wine in an old bottle; and the tang which it has contracted there, may easily embarrass the inexperienced judge. Tertullian often had more within him than he was able to express: the overflowing mind was at a loss for suitable forms of phraseology. He had to create a language for the new spiritual matter,—and that out of the rude Punic Latin,—without the aid of a logical and grammatical education, and as he was hurried along in the current of thoughts and feelings by his ardent nature. Hence the often difficult and obscure phraseology; but hence, too, the original and striking turns in his mode of representation. And hence this great church-teacher, who unites great gifts with great failings, has been so often misconceived by those who could form no friendship with the spirit which dwelt in so ungainly a form."

Hase (Kirchengesch. p. 91, tenth ed.): "Die lateinische Kirche hatte fast nur Übersetzungen, bis Tertullianus, als Heide Rhetor und Sachwalter zu Rom, mit reicher griechischer Gelehrsamkeit, die auch der Kirchenvater gern sehen liess, Presbyter in seiner Vaterstadt Karthago, ein strenger, düsterer, feuriger Character, dem Christenthum aus punischem Latein eine Literatur errang, in welcher geistreiche Rhetorik, genialer so wie gesuchter Witz, der sinnliches Anfassen des Idealen, tiefes Gefühl and juridische Verstandesansicht mit einander ringen. Er hat der afrikanischen Kirche die Losung angegeben: Christus sprach: Ich bin die Wahrheit, nicht, das Herkommen. Er hat das Gottesbewusstsein in den Tiefen der Seele hochgehalten, aber ein Mann der Auctoritaet hat er die Thorheit des Evangeliums der Weltweisheit seiner Zeitgenossen, das Unglaubliche der Wunder Gottes dem gemeinen Weltverstande mit stolzer Ironie entgegengehalten. Seine Schriften, denen er unbedenklich Fremdes angeeignet und mit dent Gepraege seines Genius versehen hat, sind theils polemisch mit dem höchsten Selbstvertraun der katholischen Gesinnung gegen Heiden, Juden und Haeretiker, theils erbaulich; so jedoch, dass auch in jenen das Erbauliche, in diesen das Polemische für strenge Sitte und Zucht vorhanden ist."

Hauck (Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften, p. 1) Unter den Schriftstellern der lateinischen Christenheit ist Tertullian einer der bedeutendsten und intressantesten. Er ist der Anfänger der lateinischen Theologie, der nicht nur ihrer Sprache seinen Stempel aufgeprägt hat, sondern sie auch an die Bahn hinwies, welche sie lange einheilt. Seine Persönlichkeit hat ebensoviel Anziehendes als Abstossendes; denn wer könnte den Ernst seines sittlichen Strebens, den Reichthum und die Lebhaftigkeit seines Geistes, die Festigkeit seiner Ueberzeugung und die stürmische Kraft seiner Beredtsamkeit verkennen? Allein ebensowenig lässt sich übersehen, dass ihm in allen Dingen das Mass fehlte. Seine Erscheinung hat nichts Edles; er war nicht frei von Bizzarem, ja Gemeinem. So zeigen ihn seine Schriften, die Denkmäler seines Lebens Er war ein Mann, der sich in unaufhörlichen Streite bewegte: sein ganzes Wesen trägt die Spuren hievon."

Cardinal Hergenröther, the first Roman Catholic church historian now living (for Döllinger was excommunicated in 1870), says of Tertullian (in his Kirchengesch. I. 168, second ed., 1879): "Strenge und ernst, oft beissend sarkastisch, in der, Sprache gedrängt und dunkel der heidnischen Philosophie durchaus abgeneigt, mit dem römischen Rechte sehr vertraut, hat er in seinen zahlreichen Schriften Bedeutendes für die Darstellung der Kirchlichen Lehre geleistet, und ungeachtet seines Uebertritts zu den Montanisten betrachteten ihn die späteren africanischen Schriftsteller, auch Cyprian, als Muster und Lehrer."

Pressensé (Martyrs and Apoloqists, p. 375): "The African nationality gave to Christianity its most eloquent defender, in whom the intense vehemence, the untempered ardor of the race, appear purified indeed, but not subdued. No influence in the early ages could equal that of Tertullian; and his writings breathe a spirit of such undying power that they can never grow old, and even now render living, controversies which have been silent for fifteen centuries. We must seek the man in his own pages, still aglow with his enthusiasm and quivering with his passion, for the details of his personal history are very few. The man is, as it were, absorbed in the writer, and we can well understand it, for his writings embody his whole soul. Never did a man more fully infuse his entire moral life into his books, and act through his words."

§ 197. The Writings of Tertullian.

Tertullian developed an extraordinary literary activity in two languages between about 190 and 220. His earlier books in the Greek language, and some in the Latin, are lost. Those which remain are mostly short; but they are numerous, and touch nearly all departments of religious life. They present a graphic picture of the church of his day. Most of his works, according to internal evidence, fill in the first quarter of the third century, in the Montanistic period of his life, and among these many of his ablest writings against the heretics; while, on the other hand, the gloomy moral austerity, which predisposed him to Montanism, comes out quite strongly even in his earliest productions.(345)

His works may be grouped in three classes: apologetic; polemic or anti-heretical; and ethic or practical; to which may be added as a fourth class the expressly Montanistic tracts against the Catholics. We can here only mention the most important:

In the Apologetic works against heathens and Jews, he pleads the cause of all Christendom, and deserves the thanks of all Christendom. Preëminent among them is the Apologeticus (or Apologeticum).(346) It was composed in the reign of Septimius Severus, between 197 and 200. It is unquestionably one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the church. In this work, Tertullian enthusiastically and triumphantly repels the attacks of the heathens upon the new religion, and demands for it legal toleration and equal rights with the other sects of the Roman empire. It is the first plea for religious liberty, as an inalienable right which God has given to every man, and which the civil government in its own interest should not only tolerate but respect and protect. He claims no support, no favor, but simply justice. The church was in the first three centuries a self-supporting and self-governing society (as it ought always to be), and no burden, but a blessing to the state, and furnished to it the most peaceful and useful citizens. The cause of truth and justice never found a more eloquent and fearless defender in the very face of despotic power, and the blazing fires of persecution, than the author of this book. It breathes from first to last the assurance of victory in apparent defeat.

"We conquer," are his concluding words to the prefects and judges of the Roman empire, "We conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued .... Many of your writers exhort to the courageous bearing of pain and death, as Cicero in the Tusculans, as Seneca in his Chances, as Diogenes, Pyrrhus, Callinicus. And yet their words do not find so many disciples as Christians do, teachers not by words, but by their deeds. That very obstinacy you rail against is the preceptress. For who that contemplates it is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it? Who, after inquiry, does not embrace our doctrines? And, when he has embraced them, desires not to suffer that he may become partaker of the fulness of God’s grace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood? For that secures the remission of all offences. On this account it is that we return thanks on the very spot for your sentences. As the divine and human are ever opposed to each other, when we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by the Highest."

The relation of the Apologeticus to the Octavius of Minucius Felix will be discussed in the next section. But even if Tertullian should have borrowed from that author (as he undoubtedly borrowed, without acknowledgment, much matter from Irenaeus, in his book against the Valentinians), he remains one of the most original and vigorous writers.(347) Moreover the plan is different; Minucius Felix pleads for Christianity as a philosopher before philosophers, to convince the intellect; Tertullian as a lawyer and advocate before judges, to induce them to give fair play to the Christians, who were refused even a hearing in the courts.

The beautiful little tract "On the Testimony of the Soul," (6 chapters) is a supplement to the Apologeticus, and furnishes one of the strongest positive arguments for Christianity. Here the human soul is called to bear witness to the one true God: it springs from God, it longs for God; its purer and nobler instincts and aspirations, if not diverted and perverted by selfish and sinful passions, tend upwards and heavenwards, and find rest and peace only in God. There is, we may say, a pre-established harmony between the soul and the Christian religion; they are made for each other; the human soul is constitutionally Christian. And this testimony is universal, for as God is everywhere, so the human soul is everywhere. But its testimony turns against itself if not heeded.

"Every soul," he concludes, "is a culprit as well as a witness: in the measure that it testifies for truth, the guilt of error lies on it; and on the day of judgment it will stand before the court of God, without a word to say. Thou proclaimedst God, O soul, but thou didst not seek to know Him; evil spirits were detested by thee, and yet they were the objects of thy adoration; the punishments of hell were foreseen by thee, but no care was taken to avoid them; thou hadst a savor of Christianity, and withal wert the persecutor of Christians."

His polemic works are occupied chiefly with the refutation of the Gnostics. Here belongs first of all his thoroughly catholic tract." On the Prescription of Heretics."(348) It is of a general character and lays down the fundamental principle of the church in dealing with heresy. Tertullian cuts off all errors and neologies at the outset from the right of legal contest and appeal to the holy Scriptures, because these belong only to the catholic church as the legitimate heir and guardian of Christianity. Irenaeus had used the same argument, but Tertullian gave it a legal or forensic form. The same argument, however, turns also against his own secession; for the difference between heretics and schismatics is really only relative, at least in Cyprian’s view. Tertullian afterwards asserted, in contradiction with this book, that in religious matters not custom nor long possession, but truth alone, was to be consulted.

Among the heretics, he attacked chiefly the Valentinian Gnostics, and Marcion. The work against Marcion (A. D. 208) is his largest, and the only one in which he indicates the date of composition, namely the 15th year of the reign of Septimius Severus (A. D. 208).(349) He wrote three works against this famous heretic; the first he set aside as imperfect, the second was stolen from him and published with many blunders before it was finished. In the new work (in five books), he elaborately defends the unity of God, the Creator of all, the integrity of the Scriptures, and the harmony of the Old and New Testaments. He displays all his power of solid argument, subtle sophistry, ridicule and sarcasm, and exhausts his vocabulary of vituperation. He is more severe upon heretics than Jews or Gentiles. He begins with a graphic description of all the physical abnormities of Pontus, the native province of Marcion, and the gloomy temper, wild passions, and ferocious habits of its people, and then goes on to say:

"Nothing in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud of the Euxine, colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay, more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion’s blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospel to pieces? Verily, O Euxine, thou hast produced a monster more credible to philosophers than to Christians. For the cynic Diogenes used to go about, lantern in hand, at mid-day, to find a man; whereas Marcion has quenched the light of his faith, and so lost the God whom he had found."

The tracts "On Baptism" "On the Soul," "On the Flesh of Christ," "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" "Against Hermogenes," "Against Praxeas," are concerned with particular errors, and are important to the doctrine of baptism, to Christian psychology, to eschatology, and christology.

His numerous Practical or Ascetic treatises throw much light on the moral life of the early church, as contrasted with the immorality of the heathen world. Among these belong the books "On Prayer" "On Penance" "On Patience,"—a virtue, which he extols with honest confession of his own natural impatience and passionate temper, and which he urges upon himself as well as others,—the consolation of the confessors in prison (Ad Martyres), and the admonition against visiting theatres (De Spectaculis), which he classes with the pomp of the devil, and against all share, direct or indirect, in the worship of idols (De Idololatria).
His strictly Montanistic or anti-catholic writings, in which the peculiarities of this sect are not only incidentally touched, as in many of the works named above, but vindicated expressly and at large, are likewise of a practical nature, and contend, in fanatical rigor, against the restoration of the lapsed (De Pudicitia), flight in persecutions, second marriage (De Monogamia, and De Exhortatione Castitatis), display of dress in females (De Cultu Feminarum), and other customs of the "Psychicals," as he commonly calls the Catholics in distinction from the sectarian Pneumatics. His plea, also, for excessive fasting (De Jejuniis), and his justification of a Christian soldier, who was discharged for refusing to crown his head (De Corona Militis), belong here. Tertullian considers it unbecoming the followers of Christ, who, when on earth, wore a crown of thorns for us, to adorn their heads with laurel, myrtle, olive, or with flowers or gems. We may imagine what he would have said to the tiara of the pope in his mediaeval splendor.

Notes.

The chronological order of Tertullian’s work can be approximately determined by the frequent allusions to the contemporaneous history of the Roman empire, and by their relation to Montanism. See especially Uhlhorn, Hauck, Bonwetsch, and also Bp. Kaye (in Oehler’s ed. of the Opera III. 709–718.) We divide the works into three classes, according to their relation to Montanism.

Those books which belong to the author’s catholic period before a.d. 200; viz.: Apologeticus or Apologeticum (in the autumn of 197, according to Bonwetsch; 198, Ebert; 199, Hesselberg; 200, Uhlhorn); Ad Martyres (197); Ad Nationes (probably soon after Apol.); De Testimonio Animae; De Poenitentia; De Oratione; De Baptismo (which according to cap. 15, was preceded by a Greek work against the validity of Heretical Baptism); Ad Uxorem; De Patientia; Adv. Judaeos; De Praescriptione Haereticorum; De Spectaculis (and a lost work on the same subject in the Greek language).

Kaye puts De Spectaculis in the Montanistic period. De Praescriptione is also placed by some in the Montanistic period before or after Adv. Marcionem. But Bonwetsch (p. 46) puts it between 199 and 206, probably in 199. Hauck makes it almost simultaneous with De Baptismo. He also places De Idololatria in this period.

Those which were certainly not composed till after his transition to Montanism, between a.d. 200 and 220; viz.: Adv. Marcionem (5 books, composed in part at least in the 15th year of the Emperor Septimius Severus, i.e. a.d. 207 or 208; comp. I. 15); De Anima; De Carne Christi; De Resurrectione Carnis; Adv. Praxean; Scorpiace (i.e. antidote against the poison of the Gnostic heresy); De Corona Militis; De Virginibus ve!andis; De Exhortatione Castitatis; De Pallio (208 or 209); De Fuga in persecutione; De Monogamia; De Jejuniis; De Pudicitia; Ad Scapulam (212); De Ecstasi (lost); De Spe Fidelium (likewise lost).

Kellner (1870) assigns De Pudicitia, De Monogamia, De Jejunio, and Adv. Praxean to the period between 218 and 222.

Those which probably belong to the Montanistic period; viz.: Adv. Valentinianos; De cultu Feminarum (2 libri); Adv. Hermogenem.

§ 198.s Minucius Felix.

(I.) M. Minucii Felicis Octavius, best ed. by Car. Halm, Vienna 1867 (in vol. II. of the "Corpus Scriptorum Eccles. Latin."), and Bernh. Dombart, with German translation and critical notes, 2d ed. Erlangen 1881. Halm has compared the only MS. of this book, ormerly in the Vatican library now in Paris, very carefully ("tanta diligentia ut de nullo jam loco dubitari possit quid in codice uno scriptum inveniatur ").

Ed. princeps by Faustus Sabaeus (Rom. 1543, as the eighth book of Arnobius Adv. Gent); then by Francis Balduin (Heidelb. 1560, as an independent work). Many edd. since, by Ursinus (1583), Meursius (1598), Wowerus (1603), Rigaltius (1643), Gronovius (1709, 1743), Davis (1712), Lindner (1760, 1773), Russwurm (1824), Lübkert (1836), Muralt (1836), Migne (1844, in "Patrol." III. Col. 193 sqq.), Fr Oehler (1847, in Gersdorf’s "Biblioth. Patr. ecelesiast. selecta," vol. XIII). Kayser (1863), Cornelissen (Lugd. Bat. 1882), etc.

English translations by H. A. Holden (Cambridge 1853), and R. E. Wallis in Clark’s "Ante-Nic. Libr." vol. XIII. p. 451–517.

(II.) Jerome: De Vir. ill. c. 58, and Ep. 48 ad Pammach., and Ep. 70 ad Magn. Lactant.: Inst. Div. V. 1, 22.

(III.) Monographs, dissertations and prolegomena to the different editions of M. Fel., by van Hoven (1766, also in Lindner’s ed. II. 1773); Meier (Turin, 1824,) Nic. Le Nourry, and Lumper (in Migne, "Patr. Lat." III. 194–231; 371–652); Rören (Minuciania,) Bedburg, 1859); Behr (on the relation of M. F. to Cicero, Gera 1870); Rönsch (in Das N. T Tertull.’s, 1871, P. 25 sqq.); Paul P. de Felice (Études sur l’Octavius, Blois, 1880); Keim (in his Celsus, 1873, 151–168, and in Rom. und das Christenthum, 1881, 383 sq., and 468–486); Ad. Ebert (1874, in Gesch. der christlich-latein. Lit. I. 24–31); G. Loesche (On the relation of M. F. to Athanagoras, in the "Jahr b. für Prot. Theol." 1882, p. l68–178); RENAN (Marc-Auréle, 1882, p. 389–404); Richard Kuhn: Der Octavius des Minucius Felix. Eine heidnisch philosophische Auffassung vom Christenthum. Leipz. 1882 (71 pages). See also the art. of Mangold in Herzog² X. 12–17 (abridged in Schaff-Herzog); G. Salmon in Smith and Wace III. 920–924.

(IV.) On the relation of Minuc. Fel. to Tertullian: Ad. Ebert: Tertullian’s Verhältniss zu Minucius Felix, nebst einem Anhang über Commodian’s Carmen apoloqeticum (1868, in the 5th vol. of the "Abhandlungen der philol. histor. Classe der K. sächs. Ges. der Wissenschaften"); W. Hartel (in Zeitschrift für d. öester. Gymnas. 1869, p. 348–368, against Ebert); E. Klusmann ("Jenaer Lit. Zeitg," 1878) Bonwetsch (in Die Schriften Tert., 1878, p. 21;) V. Schultze (in "Jahr b. für Prot. Theol." 1881, p. 485–506; P. Schwenke (Uber die Zeit des Min. Fel. in "Jahr b. für Prot. Theol.’ " 1883, p. 263–294).

In close connection with Tertullian, either shortly before, or shortly after him, stands the Latin Apologist Minucius Felix.(350)

Converts are always the most zealous, and often the most effective promoters of the system or sect which they have deliberately chosen from honest and earnest conviction. The Christian Apologists of the second century were educated heathen philosophers or rhetoricians before their conversion, and used their secular learning and culture for the refutation of idolatry and the vindication of the truths of revelation. In like manner the Apostles were Jews by birth and training, and made their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures subservient to the gospel. The Reformers of the sixteenth century came out of the bosom of mediaeval Catholicism, and were thus best qualified to oppose its corruptions and to emancipate the church from the bondage of the papacy.(351)

I. Marcus Minucius Felix belongs to that class of converts, who brought the rich stores of classical culture to the service of Christianity. He worthily opens the series of Latin writers of the Roman church which had before spoken to the world only in the Greek tongue. He shares with Lactantius the honor of being the Christian Cicero.(352) He did not become a clergyman, but apparently continued in his legal profession. We know nothing of his life except that he was an advocate in Rome, but probably of North African descent.(353)

We have from him an apology of Christianity, in the form of a dialogue under the title Octavius.(354) The author makes with his friend Octavius Januarius, who had, like himself, been converted from heathen error to the Christian truth an excursion from Rome to the sea-bath at Ostia. There they meet on a promenade along the beach with Caecilius Natalis, another friend of Minucius, but still a heathen, and, as appears from his reasoning, a philosopher of the sceptical school of the New Academy. Sitting down on the large stones which were placed there for the protection of the baths, the two friends in full view of the ocean and inhaling the gentle sea breeze, begin, at the suggestion of Caecilius, to discuss the religious question of the day. Minucius sitting between them is to act as umpire (chaps. 1–4).

Caecilius speaks first (chs. 5–15), in defence of the heathen, and in opposition to the Christian, religion. He begins like a sceptic or agnostic concerning the existence of a God as being doubtful, but he soon shifts his ground, and on the principle of expediency and utility he urges the duty of worshipping the ancestral gods. It is best to adhere to what the experience of all nations has found to be salutary. Every nation has its peculiar god or gods; the Roman nation, the most religious of all, allows the worship of all gods, and thus attained to the highest power and prosperity. He charges the Christians with presumption for claiming a certain knowledge of the highest problems which lie beyond human ken; with want of patriotism for forsaking the ancestral traditions; with low breeding (as Celsus did). He ridicules their worship of a crucified malefactor and the instrument of his crucifixion, and even an ass’s head. He repeats the lies of secret crimes, as promiscuous incest, and the murder of innocent children, and quotes for these slanders the authority of the celebrated orator Fronto. He objects to their religion that it has no temples, nor altars, nor images. He attacks their doctrines of one God, of the destruction of the present world, the resurrection and judgment, as irrational and absurd. He pities them for their austere habits and their aversion to the theatre, banquets, and other innocent enjoyments. He concludes with the re-assertion of human ignorance of things which are above us, and an exhortation to leave those uncertain things alone, and to adhere to the religion of their fathers, "lest either a childish superstition should be introduced, or all religion should be overthrown."

In the second part (ch. 16–38), Octavius refutes these charges, and attacks idolatry; meeting each point in proper order. He vindicates the existence and unity of the Godhead, the doctrine of creation and providence, as truly rational, and quotes in confirmation the opinions of various philosophers (from Cicero). He exposes the absurdity of the heathen mythology, the worship of idols made of wood and stone, the immoralities of the gods, and the cruelties and obscene rites connected with their worship. The Romans have not acquired their power by their religion, but by rapacity and acts of violence. The charge of worshipping a criminal and his cross, rests on the ignorance of his innocence and divine character. The Christians have no temples, because they will not limit the infinite God, and no images, because man is God’s image, and a holy life the best sacrifice. The slanderous charges of immorality are traced to the demons who invented and spread them among the people, who inspire oracles, work false miracles and try in every way to draw men into their ruin. It is the heathen who practice such infamies, who cruelly expose their new-born children or kill them by abortion. The Christians avoid and abhor the immoral amusements of the theatre and circus where madness, adultery, and murder are exhibited and practiced, even in the name of the gods. They find their true pleasure and happiness in God, his knowledge and worship.

At the close of the dialogue (chs. 39–40), Caecilius confesses himself convinced of his error, and resolves to embrace Christianity, and desires further instruction on the next day. Minucius expresses his satisfaction at this result, which made a decision on his part unnecessary. Joyful and thankful for the joint victory over error, the friends return from the sea-shore to Ostia.(355)

The apologetic value of this work is considerable, but its doctrinal value is very insignificant. It gives us a lively idea of the great controversy between the old and the new religion among the higher and cultivated classes of Roman society, and allows fair play and full force to the arguments on both sides. It is an able and eloquent defense of monotheism against polytheism, and of Christian morality against heathen immorality. But this is about all. The exposition of the truths of Christianity is meagre, superficial, and defective. The unity of the Godhead, his all-ruling providence, the resurrection of the body, and future retribution make up the whole creed of Octavius. The Scriptures, the prophets and apostles are ignored,(356) the doctrines of sin and grace, Christ and redemption, the Holy Spirit and his operations are left out of sight, and the name of Christ is not even mentioned; though we may reasonably infer from the manner in which the author repels the charge of worshipping "a crucified malefactor," that he regarded Christ as more than a mere man (ch. 29). He leads only to the outer court of the temple. His object was purely apologetic, and he gained his point.(357) Further instruction is not excluded, but is solicited by the converted Caecilius at the close, "as being necessary to a perfect training."(358) We have therefore no right to infer from this silence that the author was ignorant of the deeper mysteries of faith.(359)

His philosophic stand-point is eclectic with a preference for Cicero, Seneca, and Plato. Christianity is to him both theoretically and practically the true philosophy which teaches the only true God, and leads to true virtue and piety. In this respect he resembles Justin Martyr.(360)

The literary form of Octavius is very pleasing and elegant. The diction is more classical than that of any contemporary Latin writer heathen or Christian. The book bears a strong resemblance to Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, in many ideas, in style, and the urbanity, or gentlemanly tone. Dean Milman says that it "reminds us of the golden days of Latin prose." Renan calls it "the pearl of the apologetic literature of the last years of Marcus Aurelius." But the date is under dispute, and depends in part on its relation to Tertullian.

V. Time of composition. Octavius closely resembles Tertullian’s Apologeticus, both in argument and language, so that one book presupposes the other; although the aim is different, the former being the plea of a philosopher and refined gentleman, the other the plea of a lawyer and ardent Christian. The older opinion (with some exceptions(361)) maintained the priority of Apologeticus, and consequently put Octavius after a.d. 197 or 200 when the former was written. Ebert reversed the order and tried to prove, by a careful critical comparison, the originality of Octavius.(362) His conclusion is adopted by the majority of recent German writers,(363) but has also met with opposition.(364) If Tertullian used Minucius, he expanded his suggestions; if Minucius used Tertullian, he did it by way of abridgement.

It is certain that Minucius borrowed from Cicero (also from Seneca, and, perhaps, from Athenagoras),(365) and Tertullian (in his Adv. Valent.) from Irenaeus; though both make excellent use of their material, reproducing rather than copying it; but Tertullian is beyond question a far more original, vigorous, and important writer. Moreover the Roman divines used the Greek language from Clement down to Hippolytus towards the middle of the third century, with the only exception, perhaps, of Victor (190–202). So far the probability is for the later age of Minucius.

But a close comparison of the parallel passages seems to favor his priority; yet the argument is not conclusive.(366) The priority of Minucius has been inferred also from the fact that he twice mentions Fronto (the teacher and friend of Marcus Aurelius), apparently as a recent celebrity, and Fronto died about 168. Keim and Renan find allusions to the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius (177), and to the attack of Celsus (178), and hence put Octavius between 178 and 180.(367) But these assumptions are unfounded, and they would lead rather to the conclusion that the book was not written before 200; for about twenty years elapsed (as Keim himself supposes) before the Dialogue actually was recorded on paper.

An unexpected argument for the later age of Minucius is furnished by the recent French discovery of the name of Marcus Caecilius Quinti F. Natalis, as the chief magistrate of Cirta (Constantine) n Algeria, in several inscriptions from the years 210 to 217.(368) The heathen speaker Caecilius Natalis of our Dialogue hailed from that very city (chs. 9 and 31). The identity of the two persons can indeed not be proven, but is at least very probable.

Considering these conflicting possibilities and probabilities, we conclude that Octavius was written in the first quarter of the third century, probably during the peaceful reign of Alexander Severus (A. D. 222–235). The last possible date is the year 250, because Cyprian’s book De Idolorum Vanitate, written about that time is largely based upon it.(369)

§ 199. Cyprian.

Comp. § § 22, 47 and 53.

(I.) S. Cypriani Opera omnia. Best critical ed. by W. Hartel, Vindob. 1868–’71, 3 vols. oct. (in the Vienna "Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiast. Latinorum "); based upon the examination of 40 MSS.

Other edd. by Sweynheym and Pannartz, Rom. 1471 (ed. princeps), again Venice 1477; by Erasmus, Bas. 1520 (first critical ed., often reprinted); by Paul Manutius, Rom. 1563; by Morell, Par. 1564; by Rigault (Rigaltius), Par. 1648; John Fell, Bp. of Oxford, Oxon. 1682 (very good, with Bishop Pearson’s Annales Cyprianici), again Amst. 1700 and since; the Benedictine ed. begun by Baluzius and completed by Prud. Maranus, Par. 1726, 1 vol. fol. (a magnificent ed., with textual emendations to satisfy the Roman curia), reprinted in Venice, 1758, and in Migne’s "Patrol. Lat." (vol. IV. Par. 18, and part of vol. V. 9–80, with sundry additions); a convenient manual ed. by Gersdorf, Lips. 1838 sq. (in Gersdorf’s "Biblioth. Patrum Lat." Pars II. and III.)

English translations by N. Marshall, Lond., 1717; in the Oxf. "Library of the Fathers," Oxf. 1840 and by R. G. Wallis in "Ante-Nicene Lib." Edinb. 1868, 2 vols. N. York ed. vol. V. (1885).

(II.) Vita Cypriani by Pontius, and the Acta Proconsularia Martyrii Cypr., both in Ruinart’s Acta Mart. II., and the former in most ed. of his works.

(III.) J. Pearson: Annales Cyprianici. Oxon. 1682, in the ed. of Fell. A work of great learning and acumen, determining the chronological order of many Epp. and correcting innumerable mistakes.

H. Dodwell: Dissertationes Cyprianicae tres. Oxon. 1684; Amst. 1700; also in Tom. V of Migne’s "Patr. Lat." col. 9–80.

A. F. Gervaise: Vie de St. Cyprien. Par. 1717.

F. W. Rettberg: Cyprianus nach seinem Leben u. Wirken. Gött. 1831.

G. A. Poole: Life and Times of Cyprian. Oxf. 1840 (419 pages). High-church Episcop. and anti-papal,

Aem. Blampignon: Vie de Cyprien. Par. 1861.

Ch. E. Freppel (Ultramontane): Saint Cyprien et l’église d’ Afrique an troisième siécle. Paris, 1865, 2d ed. 1873.

Ad. Ebert: Geschichte der christl. latein. Literatur. Leipz. 1874, vol. I. 54–61.

J. Peters (R.C.): Der heil. Cyprian. Leben u. Wirken. Regensb. 1877.

B. Fechtrup: Der h. Cyprian, Leben u. Lehre, vol. I. Münster, 1878.

Otto Ritschl: Cyprian vom Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche. Göttingen 1885.

Articles on special topics connected with Cyprian by J. W. Nevin and Varien (both in "Mercerburg Review" for 1852 and ’53); Peters (Ultramontane: Cyprian’s doctrine on Unity of the Church in opposition to the schisms of Carthage and Rome, Luxemb 1870); Jos. Hub. Reinkens (Old Cath. Bp.: Cypr’s. Doctr. on the Unity of the Church. Würzburg, 1873).

I. Life of Cyprian.

Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, bishop and martyr, and the impersonation of the catholic church of the middle of the third century, sprang from a noble and wealthy heathen family of Carthage, where he was born about the year 200, or earlier. His deacon and biographer, Pontius, considers his earlier life not worthy of notice in comparison with his subsequent greatness in the church. Jerome tells us, that he stood in high repute as a teacher of rhetoric.(370) He was, at all events, a man of commanding literary, rhetorical, and legal culture, and of eminent administrative ability which afterwards proved of great service to him in the episcopal office. He lived in worldly splendor to mature age, nor was he free from the common vices of heathenism, as we must infer from his own confessions. But the story, that he practised arts of magic arises perhaps from some confusion, and is at any rate unattested. Yet, after he became a Christian he believed, like Tertullian and others, in visions and dreams, and had some only a short time before his martyrdom.

A worthy presbyter, Caecilius, who lived in Cyprian’s house, and afterwards at his death committed his wife and children to him, first made him acquainted with the doctrines of the Christian religion, and moved him to read the Bible. After long resistance Cyprian forsook the world, entered the class of catechumens, sold his estates for the benefit of the poor,(371) took a vow of chastity, and in 245 or 246 received baptism, adopting, out of gratitude to his spiritual father, the name of Caecilius.

He himself, in a tract soon afterwards written to a friend,(372) gives us the following oratorical description of his conversion: While I languished in darkness and deep night, tossing upon the sea of a troubled world, ignorant of my destination, and far from truth and light, I thought it, according to my then habits, altogether a difficult and hard thing that a man could be born anew, and that, being quickened to new life by the bath of saving water, he might put off the past, and, while preserving the identity of the body, might transform the man in mind and heart. How, said I, is such a change possible? How can one at once divest himself of all that was either innate or acquired and grown upon him?... Whence does he learn frugality, who was accustomed to sumptuous feasts? And how shall he who shone in costly apparel, in gold and purple, come down to common and simple dress? He who has lived in honor and station, cannot bear to be private and obscure .... But when, by the aid of the regenerating water,(373) the stain of my former life was washed away, a serene and pure light poured from above into my purified breast. So soon as I drank the spirit from above and was transformed by a second birth into a new man, then the wavering mind became wonderfully firm; what had been closed opened; the dark became light; strength came for that which had seemed difficult; what I had thought impossible became practicable."

Cyprian now devoted himself zealously, in ascetic retirement, to the study of the Scriptures and the church teachers, especially Tertullian, whom be called for daily with the words: "Hand me the master!"(374) The influence of Tertullian on his theological formation is unmistakable, and appears at once, for example, on comparing the tracts of the two on prayer and on patience, or the work of the one on the vanity of idols with the apology of the other. It is therefore rather strange that in his own writings we find no acknowledgment of his indebtedness, and, as far as I recollect, no express allusion whatever to Tertullian and the Montanists. But he could derive no aid and comfort from him in his conflict with schism.

Such a man could not long remain concealed. Only two years after his baptism, in spite of his earnest remonstrance, Cyprian was raised to the bishopric of Carthage by the acclamations of the people, and was thus at the same time placed at the head of the whole North African clergy. This election of a neophyte was contrary to the letter of the ecclesiastical laws (comp. 1 Tim. 3:6), and led afterwards to the schism of the party of Novatus. But the result proved, that here, as in the similar elevation of Ambrose, Augustin, and other eminent bishops of the ancient church, the voice of the people was the voice of God.

For the space of ten years, ending with his triumphant martyrdom, Cyprian administered the episcopal office in Carthage with exemplary energy, wisdom, and fidelity, and that in a most stormy time, amidst persecutions from without and schismatic agitations within. The persecution under Valerian brought his active labors to a close. He was sent into exile for eleven months, then tried before the Proconsul, and condemned to be beheaded. When the sentence was pronounced, he said: "Thanks be to God," knelt in prayer, tied the bandage over his eyes with his own hand, gave to the executioner a gold piece, and died with the dignity and composure of a hero. His friends removed and buried his body by night. Two chapels were erected on the spots of his death and burial. The anniversary of his death was long observed; and five sermons of Augustin still remain in memory of Cyprian’s martyrdom, Sept. 14, 258.

Character and Position.

As Origen was the ablest scholar, and Tertullian the strongest writer, so Cyprian was the greatest bishop, of the third century. He was born to be a prince in the church. In executive talent, he even surpassed all the Roman bishops of his time; and he bore himself towards them, also, as "frater" and "collega," in the spirit of full equality. Augustin calls him by, eminence, "the catholic bishop and catholic martyr;" and Vincentius of Lirinum, "the light of all saints, all martyrs, and all bishops." His stamp of character was more that of Peter than either of Paul or John.

His peculiar importance falls not so much in the field of theology, where he lacks originality and depth, as in church organization and discipline. While Tertullian dealt mainly with heretics, Cyprian directed his polemics against schismatics, among whom he had to condemn, though he never does in fact, his venerated teacher, who died a Montanist. Yet his own conduct was not perfectly consistent with his position; for in the controversy on heretical baptism he himself exhibited his master’s spirit of opposition to Rome. He set a limit to his own exclusive catholic principle of tradition by the truly Protestant maxims: "Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est, and, Non est de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum." In him the idea of the old catholic hierarchy and episcopal autocracy, both in its affinity and in its conflict with the idea of the papacy, was personally embodied, so to speak, and became flesh and blood. The unity of the church, as the vehicle and medium of all salvation, was the thought of his life and the passion of his heart. But he contended with the same zeal for an independent episcopate as for a Roman primacy; and the authority of his name has been therefore as often employed against the papacy as in its favor. On both sides he was the faithful organ of the churchly spirit of the age.

It were great injustice to attribute his high churchly principle to pride and ambition, though temptations to this spirit unquestionably beset a prominent position like his. Such principles are, entirely compatible with sincere personal humility before God. It was the deep conviction of the divine authority, and the heavy responsibility of the episcopate, which lay it the bottom both of his first "nolo episcopari, " and of subsequent hierarchical feeling. He was as conscientious in discharging the duties, as he was jealous in maintaining the rights, of his office. Notwithstanding his high conception of the dignity of a bishop, he took counsel of his presbyters in everything, and respected the rights of his people. He knew how to combine strictness and moderation, dignity and gentleness, and to inspire love and confidence as well as esteem and veneration. He took upon himself, like a father, the care of the widows and orphans, the poor and sick. During the great pestilence of 252 he showed the most self-sacrificing fidelity to his flock, and love for his enemies. He forsook his congregation, indeed, in the Decian persecution, but only, as he expressly assured them, in pursuance of a divine admonition, and in order to direct them during his fourteen months of exile by pastoral epistles. His conduct exposed him to the charge of cowardice. In the Valerian persecution he completely washed away the stain of that flight with the blood of his calm and cheerful martyrdom.

He exercised first rigid discipline, but at a later period—not in perfect consistency—he moderated his disciplinary principles in prudent accommodation to the exigencies of the times. With Tertullian he prohibited all display of female dress, which only deformed the work of the Creator; and he warmly opposed all participation in heathen amusements,—even refusing a converted play-actor permission to give instruction in declamation and pantomime. He lived in a simple, ascetic way, under a sense of the perishableness of all earthly things, and in view of the solemn eternity, in which alone also the questions and strifes of the church militant would be perfectly settled. "Only above," says he in his tract De Mortalitate, which be composed during the pestilence, "only above are true peace, sure repose, constant, firm, and eternal security; there is our dwelling, there our home. Who would not fain hasten to reach it? There a great multitude of beloved awaits us; the numerous host of fathers, brethren, and children. There is a glorious choir of apostles there the number of exulting prophets; there the countless multitude of martyrs, crowned with victory after warfare and suffering; there triumphing virgins; there the merciful enjoying their reward. Thither let us hasten with longing desire; let us wish to be soon with them, soon with Christ. After the earthly comes the heavenly; after the small follows the great after perishableness, eternity."

His writings.

As an author, Cyprian is far less original, fertile and vigorous than Tertullian, but is clearer, more moderate, and more elegant and rhetorical in his style. He wrote independently only on the doctrines of the church, the priesthood, and sacrifice.

(1.) His most important works relate to practical questions on church government and discipline. Among these is his tract on the Unity of the Church (A. D. 251), that "magna charta" of the old catholic high-church spirit, the commanding importance of which we have already considered. Then eighty-one Epistles,(375) some very long, to various bishops, to the clergy and the churches of Africa and of Rome, to the confessors, to the lapsed, &c.; comprising also some letters from others in reply, as from Cornelius of Rome and Firmilian of Caesarea. They give us a very graphic picture of his pastoral labors, and of the whole church life of that day. To the same class belongs also his treatise: De Lapsis (A. D. 250) against loose penitential discipline.

(2.) Besides these he wrote a series of moral works, On the Grace of God (246); On the Lord’s Prayer (252); On Mortality (252); against worldly-mindedness and pride of dress in consecrated virgins (De Habitu Virginum); a glowing call to Martyrdom; an exhortation to liberality (De Opere el Eleemosynis, between 254 and 256), with a touch of the "opus operatum" doctrine; and two beautiful tracts written during his controversy with pope Stephanus: De Bono Patienti, and De Zelo et Livore (about 256), in which he exhorts the excited minds to patience and moderation.

(3.) Least important are his two apologetic works, the product of his Christian pupilage. One is directed against heathenism (de Idolorum Vanitate), and is borrowed in great part, often verbally, from Tertullian and Minucius Felix. The other, against Judaism (Testimonia adversus Judaeos), also contains no new thoughts, but furnishes a careful collection of Scriptural proofs of the Messiahship and divinity of Jesus.

Note.—Among the pseudo-Cyprianic writings is a homily against dice-playing and all games of chance (Adversus Aleatores, in Hartel’s ed. III. 92–103), which has been recently vindicated for Bishop Victor of Rome (190–202), an African by birth and an exclusive high churchman. It is written in the tone of a papal encyclical and in rustic Latin. See Harnack: Der pseudo-cyprian. Tractat De Aleatoribus, Leipzig 1888. Ph. Schaff: The Oldest Papal Encyclical, in The Independent, N. York, Feb. 28, 1889.

§ 200. Novatian.

Comp. §58, p. 196 sq. and §183, p. 773.

(I.) Novatiani, Presbyteri Romani, Opera quae exstant omnia. Ed. by Gagnaeus (Par. 1545, in the works of Tertullian); Gelenius (Bas. 1550 and 1562); Pamelius (Par. 1598); Gallandi (Tom III.); Edw. Welchman (Oxf. 1724); J. Jackson (Lond. 1728, the best ed.); Migne (in "Patrol. Lat." Tom. III. col. 861–970). Migne’s ed. includes the dissertation of Lumper and the Commentary of Gallandi.

English translation by R. E. Wallis in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. II. (1869), p. 297–395; Comp. vol. I. 85 sqq.

(II.) Euseb.: H. E. VI. 43, 44, 45. Hieron.: De Vir. ill. 66 and 70; Ep. 36 ad Damas.; Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 19. Socrates: H. E. IV. 28. The Epistles Of Cyprian and Cornelius referring to the schism of Novatian (Cypr. Ep. 44, 45, 49, 52, 55, 59, 60, 68, 69, 73). Epiphanius: Haer. 59; Socrates: H. E IV. 28. Theodor.: Haer. Fab. III. 5. Photius Biblioth. 182, 208, 280.

(III.) Walch: Ketzerhistorie II. 185–288. Schoenemann: Biblioth. Hist. Lit. Patr. Latinorum, I. 135–142. Lumper: Dissert. de Vita, Scriptis, et doctrina Nov., in Migne’s ed. III. 861–884. Neander, I. 237–248, and 687 (Am ed.) Caspari: Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. 428–430, 437–439. Jos. Langen (Old Cath.): Gesch. der röm. Kirche (Bonn 1881), p. 289–314. Harnack; Novatian in Herzog² X. (1882), p. 652–670. Also the works on Cyprian, especially Fechtrup. See Lit. § 199. On Novatian’s doctrine of the trinity and the person of Christ see Dorner’s Entwicklungsgesch. der L. v. d. Pers. Christi (1851), I. 601–604. (Dem Tertullian nahe stehend, von ihm abhängig, aber auch ihn verflachend ist Novatian.")

Novatian, the second Roman anti-Pope (Hippolytus being probably the first), orthodox in doctrine, but schismatic in discipline, and in both respects closely resembling Hippolytus and Tertullian, flourished in the middle of the third century and became the founder of a sect called after his name.(376) He was a man of unblemished, though austere character, considerable biblical and philosophical learning, speculative talent, and eloquence.(377) He is moreover, next to Victor and Minucius Felix, the first Roman divine who used the Latin Language, and used it with skill. We may infer that at his time the Latin had become or was fast becoming the ruling language of the Roman church, especially in correspondence with North Africa and the West; yet both Novatian and his rival Cornelius addressed the Eastern bishops in Greek. The epitaphs of five Roman bishops of the third century, Urbanus, Anteros, Fabianus, Lucius, and Eutychianus (between 223 and 283), in the cemetery of Callistus are Greek, but the epitaph of Cornelius (251–253) who probably belonged to the noble Roman family of that name, is Latin ("Cornelius Martyr E. R. X.")(378)

At, that time the Roman congregation numbered forty presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, besides exorcists, readers and janitors, and an "innumerable multitude of the people," which may have amounted perhaps to about 50,000 members.(379)

We know nothing of the time and place of the birth and death of Novatian. He was probably an Italian. The later account of his Phrygian origin deserves no credit, and may have arisen from the fact that he had many followers in Phrygia, where they united with the Montanists. He was converted in adult age, and received only clinical baptism by sprinkling on the sick bed without subsequent episcopal confirmation, but was nevertheless ordained to the priesthood and rose to the highest rank in the Roman clergy. He conducted the official correspondence of the Roman see during the vacancy from the martyrdom of Fabian, January 21, 250, till the election of Cornelius, March, 251. In his letter to Cyprian, written in the name of "the presbyters and deacons abiding at Rome,"(380) he refers the question of the restoration of the lapsed to a future council, but shows his own preference for a strict discipline, as most necessary in peace and in persecution, and as "the rudder of safety in the tempest."(381)

He may have aspired to the papal chair to which he seemed to have the best claim. But after the Decian persecution had ceased his rival Cornelius, unknown before, was elected by a majority of the clergy and favored the lenient discipline towards the Fallen which his predecessors Callistus and Zephyrinus had exercised, and against which Hippolytus had so strongly protested twenty or thirty years before. Novatian was elected anti-Pope by a minority and consecrated by three Italian bishops.(382) He was excommunicated by a Roman council, and Cornelius denounced him in official letters as "a deceitful, cunning and savage beast." Both parties appealed to foreign churches. Fabian of Antioch sympathized with Novatian, but Dionysius of Alexandria, and especially Cyprian who in the mean time had relaxed his former rigor and who hated schism like the very pest, supported Cornelius, and the lax and more charitable system of discipline, together with worldly conformity triumphed in the Catholic church. Nevertheless the Novatian schism spread East and West and maintained its severe discipline and orthodox creed in spite of imperial persecution down to the sixth century. Novatian died a martyr according to the tradition of his followers. The controversy turned on the extent of the power of the Keys and the claims of justice to the purity of the church and of mercy towards the fallen. The charitable view prevailed by the aid of the principle that out of the church there is no salvation.

Novatian was a fruitful author. Jerome ascribes to him works On the Passover; On the Sabbath; On Circumcision; On the Priest (De Sacerdote); On Prayer; On the Jewish Meats; On Perseverance;(383) On Attilus (a martyr of Pergamus); and "On the Trinity."

Two of these books are preserved. The most important is his Liber de Trinitate (31 chs.), composed a.d. 256. It has sometimes been ascribed to Tertullian or Cyprian. Jerome calls it a "great work," and an extract from an unknown work of Tertullian on the same subject. Novatian agrees essentially with Tertullian’s subordination trinitarianism. He ably vindicates the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, strives to reconcile the divine threeness with unity, and refutes the Monarchians, especially the Sabellians by biblical and philosophical arguments.

In his Epistola de Cibus Judaicis (7 chapters) written to his flock from a place of retirement during persecution, he tries to prove by allegorical interpretation, that the Mosaic laws on food are no longer binding upon Christians, and that Christ has substituted temperance and abstinence for the prohibition of unclean animals, with the exception of meat offered to idols, which is forbidden by the Apostolic council (Acts 15).

§ 201. Commodian.

(I.) Commodianus: Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen Apologeticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. The Instructiones were discovered by Sirmond, and first edited by Rigault at Toul, 1650; more recently by Fr. Oehler in Gersdorf’s "Biblioth. P. Lat.," vol. XVIII., Lips. 1847 (p. 133–194,) and by Migne." Patrol." vol. V. col. 201–262.

The second work was discovered and published by Card. Pitra in the "Spicilegium Solesmense," Tom. I. Par. 1852, p. 21–49 and Excurs. 537–543, and with new emendations of the corrupt text in Tom. IV. (1858), p. 222–224; and better by Rönsch in the "Zeitschrift für hist. Theol." for 1872.

Both poems were edited together by E. Ludwig: Commodiani Carmina, Lips. 1877 and 1878; and by B. Dombart, Vienna.

English translation of the first poem (but in prose) by R. E. Wallis in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. III. (1870, pp. 434–474.

(II.) Dodwell: Dissert. de aetate Commod. Prolegg. in Migne, V. 189–200. Alzog: Patrol. 340–342. J. L. Jacobi in Schneider’s " Zeitschrift für christl. Wissenschaft und christl. Leben" for 1853, pp. 203–209. Ad. Ebert, in an appendix to his essay on Tertullian’s relation to Minucius Felix, Leipz. 1868, pp. 69–102; in his Gesch. er christl. lat. Lit., I. 86–93; also his art. in Herzog² III. 325 sq. Leimbach, in an Easter Programme on Commodian’s Carmen apol. adv. Gentes et Judaeos, Schmalkalden, 1871 (he clears up many points). Hermann Rönsch, in the "Zeitschrift für historische Theologie" for 1872, No. 2, pp. 163–302 (he presents a revised Latin text with philological explanations). Young in Smith and Wace, I. 610–611.

Commodian was probably a clergyman in North Africa.(384) He was converted from heathenism by the study of the Scriptures, especially of the Old Testament.(385) He wrote about the middle of the third century two works in the style of vulgar African latinity, in uncouth versification and barbarian hexameter, without regard to quantity and hiatus. They are poetically and theologically worthless, but not unimportant for the history of practical Christianity, and reveal under a rude dress with many superstitious notions, an humble and fervent Christian heart. Commodian was a Patripassian in christology and a Chiliast in eschatology. Hence he is assigned by Pope Gelasius to the apocryphal writers. His vulgar African latinity is a landmark in the history of the Latin language and poetry in the transition to the Romance literature of the middle ages.

The first poem is entitled "Instructions for the Christian Life," written about a.d. 240 or earlier.(386) It is intended to convert heathens and Jews, and gives also exhortations to catechumens, believers, and penitents. The poem has over twelve hundred verses and is divided into eighty strophes, each of which is an acrostic, the initial letters of the lines composing the title or subject of the section. The first 45 strophes are apologetic, and aimed at the heathen, the remaining 35 are parenetic and addressed to Christians. The first part exhorts unbelievers to repent in view of the impending end of the world, and gives prominence to chiliastic ideas about Antichrist, the return of the Twelve Tribes, the first resurrection, the millennium, and the last judgment. The second part exhorts catechumens and various classes of Christians. The last acrostic which again reminds the reader of the end of the world, is entitled "Nomen Gazaei,"(387) and, if read backwards, gives the name of the author: Commodianus mendicus Christi.(388)

The second work which was only brought to light in 1852, is an "Apologetic Poem against Jews and Gentiles," and was written about 249. It exhorts them (like the first part of the "Instructions" to repent without delay in view of the approaching end of the world. It is likewise written in uncouth hexameters and discusses in 47 sections the doctrine of God, of man, and of the Redeemer (vers. 89–275); the meaning of the names of Son and Father in the economy of salvation (276–573); the obstacles to the progress of Christianity(574–611); it warns Jews and Gentiles to forsake their religion (612–783), and gives a description of the last things (784–1053).

The most interesting part of this second poem is the conclusion. It contains a fuller description of Antichrist than the first poem. The author expects that the end of the world will soon come with the seventh persecution; the Goths will conquer Rome and redeem the Christians; but then Nero will appear as the heathen Antichrist, reconquer Rome, and rage against the Christians three years and a-half; he will be conquered in turn by the Jewish and real Antichrist from the east, who after the defeat of Nero and the burning of Rome will return to Judaea, perform false miracles, and be worshipped by the Jews. At last Christ appears, that is God himself (from the Monarchian standpoint of the author), with the lost Twelve Tribes as his army, which had lived beyond Persia in happy simplicity and virtue; under astounding phenomena of nature he will conquer Antichrist and his host, convert all nations and take possession of the holy city of Jerusalem. The concluding description of the judgment is preserved only in broken fragments. The idea of a double Antichrist is derived from the two beasts of the Apocalypse, and combines the Jewish conception of the Antimessiah, and the heathen Nero-legend. But the remarkable feature is that the second Antichrist is represented as a Jew and as defeating the heathen Nero, as he will be defeated by Christ. The same idea of a double antichrist appears in Lactantius.(389)

§ 202. Arnobius.

(I.) Arnobii (oratoris) adversus Nationes (or Gentes) libri septem. Best ed. by Reifferscheid, Vindob. 1875. (vol. IV. of the "Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum," issued by the Academy of Vienna.)

Other editions: by Faustus Sabaeus, Florence 1543 (ed. princeps); Bas. (Frobenius) 1546; Paris 1580, 1666, 1715; Antw. 1582; Rom. 1583; Genev. 1597; Lugd. Bat. 1598, 165l; by Orelli, Lips. 1816; Hildebrand, Halle, 1844; Migne, "Patrol. Lat." v. 1844, col. 350 sqq. Fr. Oehler (in Gersdorf’s "Bibl. Patr. Lat."), Lips. 1846. On the text see the Prolegg of Oehler and Reifferscheid.

English Version by A. Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, in Clark’s "Ante-Nic. Libr." vol. XIX. (Edinb. 1871). German transl. by Benard (1842), and Alleker (1858).

(II.) Hieronymus: De Vir. ill. 79; Chron. ad ann. 325 (xx. Constantini); Ep. 46, and 58, ad Paulinum.

The learned Dissertatio praevia of the Benedictine Le Nourry in Migne’s ed. v. 365–714. Neander: I. 687–689. Möhler (R.C.): Patrol. I. 906–916. Alzog (R.C.): Patrologie (3d ed), p. 205–210. Zink: Zur Kritik und Erklärung des Arnob., Bamb. 1873. Ebert, Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I 61–70. Herzog in Herzog² I. 692 sq. Moule in Smith and Wace I. 167–169.

Arnobius, a successful teacher of rhetoric with many pupils (Lactantius being one of them), was first an enemy, then an advocate of Christianity. He lived in Sicca, an important city on the Numidian border to the Southwest of Carthage, in the latter part of the third and the beginning of the fourth century . He was converted to Christ in adult age, like his more distinguished fellow-Africans, Tertullian and Cyprian. "O blindness," he says, in describing the great change, "only a short time ago I was worshipping images just taken from the forge, gods shaped upon the anvil and by the hammer .... When I saw a stone made smooth and smeared with oil, I prayed to it and addressed it as if a living power dwelt in it, and implored blessings from the senseless stock. And I offered grievious insult even to the gods, whom I took to be such, in that I considered them wood, stone, and bone, or fancied that they dwelt in the stuff of such things. Now that I have been led by so great a teacher into the way of truth, I know what all that is, I think worthily of the Worthy, offer no insult to the Godhead, and give every one his due .... Is Christ, then, not to be regarded as God? And is He who in other respects may be deemed the very greatest, not to be honored with divine worship, from whom we have received while alive so great gifts, and from whom, when the day comes we expect greater gifts?"(390)

The contrast was very startling indeed, if we remember that Sicca bore the epithet "Veneria," as the seat of the vile worship of the goddess of lust in whose temple the maidens sacrificed their chastity, like the Corinthian priestesses of Aphrodite. He is therefore especially severe in his exposure of the sexual immoralities of the heathen gods, among whom Jupiter himself takes the lead in all forms of vice.(391)

We know nothing of his subsequent life and death. Jerome, the only ancient writer who mentions him, adds some doubtful particulars, namely that he was converted by visions or dreams, that he was first refused admission to the Church by the bishop of Sicca, and hastily wrote his apology in proof of his sincerity. But this book, though written soon after his conversion, is rather the result of an inward impulse and strong conviction than outward occasion.

We have from him an Apology of Christianity in seven books of unequal length, addressed to the Gentiles. It was written a.d. 303,(392) at the outbreak of the Diocletian persecution; for he alludes to the tortures, the burning of the sacred Scriptures and the destruction of the meeting houses, which were the prominent features of that persecution.(393) It is preserved in only one manuscript (of the ninth or tenth century), which contains also the "Octavius" of Minucius Felix.(394) The first two books are apologetic, the other five chiefly polemic. Arnobius shows great familiarity with Greek and Roman mythology and literature, and quotes freely from Homer, Plato, Cicero, and Varro. He ably refutes the objections to Christianity, beginning with the popular charge that it brought the wrath of the gods and the many public calamities upon the Roman empire. He exposes at length the absurdities and immoralities of the heathen mythology. He regards the gods as real, but evil beings.

The positive part is meagre and unsatisfactory. Arnobius seems as ignorant about the Bible as Minucius Felix. He never quotes the Old Testament, and the New Testament only once.(395) He knows nothing of the history of the Jews, and the Mosaic worship, and confounds the Pharisees and Sadducees. Yet be is tolerably familiar, whether from the Gospels or from tradition, with the history of Christ. He often refers in growing language to his incarnation, crucifixion, and exaltation. He represents him as the supreme teacher who revealed God to man, the giver of eternal life, yea, as God, though born a man, as God on high, God in his inmost nature, as the Saviour God, and the object of worship.(396) Only his followers can be saved, but he offers salvation even to his enemies. His divine mission is proved by his miracles, and these are attested by their unique character, their simplicity, publicity and beneficence. He healed at once a hundred or more afflicted with various diseases, he stilled the raging tempest, he walked over the sea with unwet foot, he astonished the very waves, he fed five thousand with five loaves, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments that remained, he called the dead from the tomb. He revealed himself after the resurrection "in open day to countless numbers of men;" "he appears even now to righteous men of unpolluted mind who love him, not in any dreams, but in a form of pure simplicity."(397)

His doctrine of God is Scriptural, and strikingly contrasts with the absurd mythology. God is the author and ruler of all things, unborn, infinite, spiritual, omnipresent, without passion, dwelling in light, the giver of all good, the sender of the Saviour.

As to man, Arnobius asserts his free will, but also his ignorance and sin, and denies his immortality. The soul outlives the body but depends solely on God for the gift of eternal duration. The wicked go to the fire of Gehenna, and will ultimately be consumed or annihilated. He teaches the resurrection of the flesh, but in obscure terms.

Arnobius does not come up to the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, even of the ante-Nicene age. Considering his apparent ignorance of the Bible, and his late conversion, we need not be surprised at this. Jerome now praises, now censures him, as unequal, prolix, and confused in style, method, and doctrine. Pope Gelasius in the fifth century banished his book to the apocryphal index, and since that time it was almost forgotten, till it was brought to light again in the sixteenth century. Modern critics agree in the verdict that he is more successful in the refutation of error than in the defense of truth.

But the honesty, courage, and enthusiasm of the convert for his new faith are as obvious as the defects of his theology. If be did not know or clearly understand the doctrines of the Bible, be seized its moral tone.(398) "We have learned," he says, "from Christ’s teaching and his laws, that evil ought not to be requited with evil (comp. Matt. 5:39), that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. An ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying the benefit of Christ; for by his influence the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and restrained from the blood of a fellow-creature. If all would lend an ear to his salutary and peaceful laws, the world would turn the use of steel to occupations of peace, and live in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties."(399) He indignantly asks the heathen, "Why have our writings deserved to be given to the flames, and our meetings to be cruelly broken up? In them prayer is offered to the supreme God, peace and pardon are invoked upon all in authority, upon soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, upon those still in life, and those released from the bondage of the flesh. In them all that is said tends to make men humane, gentle, modest, virtuous, chaste, generous in dealing with their substance, and inseparably united to all that are embraced in our brotherhood."(400) He uttered his testimony boldly in the face of the last and most cruel persecution, and it is not unlikely that he himself was one of its victims.

The work of Arnobius is a rich store of antiquarian and mythological knowledge, and of African latinity.

§ 203. Victorinus of Petau.

(I.) Opera in the "Max. Biblioth. vet. Patrum." Lugd. Tom. III., in Gallandi’s "Bibl. PP.," Tom. IV.; and in Migne’s "Patrol. Lat.," V. 281–344 (De Fabrica Mundi, and Scholia in Apoc. Joannis).

English translation by R. E. Wallis, in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Library," Vol. III., 388–433; N. York ed. VII. (1886).

(II.) Jerome: De. Vir. ill., 74. Cassiodor: Justit. Div. Lit., c. 9. Cave: Hist. Lit., I., 147 sq. Lumper’s Proleg., in Migne’s ed., V. 281–302, Routh: Reliq., S. I., 65; III., 455–481.

Victorinus, probably of Greek extraction, was first a rhetorician by profession, and became bishop of Petavium, or Petabio,(401) in ancient Panonia (Petau, in the present Austrian Styria). He died a martyr in the Diocletian persecution (303). We have only fragments of his writings, and they are not of much importance, except for the age to which they belong. Jerome says that he understood Greek better than Latin, and that his works are excellent for the sense, but mean as to the style. He counts him among the Chiliasts, and ascribes to him commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Canticles, the Apocalypse, a book Against all Heresies, "et multa alia." Several poems are also credited to him, but without good reason.(402)

The fragment on the Creation of the World is a series of notes on the account of creation, probably a part of the commentary on Genesis mentioned by Jerome. The days are taken liberally. The creation of angels and archangels preceded the creation of man, as light was made before the sky and the earth. The seven days typify seven millennia; the seventh is the millennial sabbath, when Christ will reign on earth with his elect. It is the same chiliastic notion which we found in the Epistle of Barnabas, with the same opposition to Jewish sabbatarianism. Victorinus compares the seven days with the seven eyes of the Lord (Zech. 4:10), the seven heavens (comp. Ps. 33:6), the seven spirits that dwelt in Christ (Isa. 11:2, 3), and the seven stages of his humanity: his nativity, infancy, boyhood, youth, young-manhood, mature age, death. This is a fair specimen of these allegorical plays of a pious imagination.
The scholia on the Apocalypse of John are not without interest for the history of the interpretation of this mysterious book.(403) But they are not free from later interpolations of the fifth or sixth century. The author assigns the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian (herein agreeing with Irenaeus), and combines the historical and allegorical methods of interpretation. He also regards the visions in part as synchronous rather than successive. He comments only on the more difficult passages.(404) We select the most striking points.

The woman in ch. 12 is the ancient church of the prophets and apostles; the dragon is the devil. The woman sitting on the seven hills (in ch. 17), is the city of Rome. The beast from the abyss is the Roman empire; Domitian is counted as the sixth, Nerva as the seventh, and Nero revived as the eighth Roman King.(405) The number 666 (13:18) means in Greek Teitan(406) (this is the explanation preferred by Irenaeus), in Latin Diclux. Both names signify Antichrist, according to the numerical value of the Greek and Roman letters. But Diclux has this meaning by contrast, for Antichrist, "although he is cut off from the supernal light, yet transforms himself into an angel of light, daring to call himself light."(407) To this curious explanation is added, evidently by a much later hand, an application of the mystic number to the Vandal king Genseric (genshvriko") who in the fifth century laid waste the Catholic church of North Africa and sacked the city of Rome.

The exposition of ch. 20:1–6 is not so strongly chiliastic, as the corresponding passage in the Commentary on Genesis, and hence some have denied the identity of authorship. The first resurrection is explained spiritually with reference to Col. 3:1, and the author leaves it optional to understand the thousand years as endless or as limited. Then he goes on to allegorize about the numbers: ten signifies the decalogue, and hundred the crown of virginity; for he who keeps the vow of virginity completely, and fulfils the precepts of the decalogue, and destroys the impure thoughts within the retirement of his own heart, is the true priest of Christ, and reigns with him; and "truly in his case the devil is bound." At the close of the notes on ch. 22, the author rejects the crude and sensual chiliasm of the heretic Cerinthus. "For the kingdom of Christ," he says, "is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection."(408) This looks like a later addition, and intimates the change which Constantine’s reign produced in the mind of the church as regards the millennium. Henceforth it was dated from the incarnation of Christ.(409)

§ 204. Eusebius, Lactantius, Hosius.

On Eusebius see vol. III. 871–879—Add to Lit. the exhaustive article of Bp. Lightfoot in Smith and Wace, II. (1880), p. 308–348; Dr. Salmon, on the Chron. of Eus. ibid. 354–355; and Semisch in Herzog² IV. 390–398.

On Lactantius see vol. III. 955–959.—Add to Lit. Ebert: Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I. (1874), p. 70–86; and his art. in Herzog² VIII. 364–366; and E. S. Ffoulkes in Smith and Wace III. 613–617.

On Hosius, see § 55 p. 179 sqq.; and vol. III. 627, 635, 636.—Add to Lit. P. Bonif. Gams (R.C.): Kirchengesch. v. Spanien, Regensb. 1862 sqq, , Bd II. 137–309 (the greater part of the second vol. is given to Hosius); W. Möller in Herzog² VI. 326–328; and T. D. C. Morse in Smith and Wace III. 162–174.

At the close of our period we meet with three representative divines, in close connection with the first Christian emperor who effected the politico-ecclesiastical revolution known as the union of church and state. Their public life and labors belong to the next period, but must at least be briefly foreshadowed here.

Eusebius, the historian, Lactantius, the rhetorician, and Hosius, the statesman, form the connecting links between the ante-Nicene and Nicene ages; their long lives—two died octogenarians, Hosius a centenarian—are almost equally divided between the two; and they reflect the lights and shades of both.(410) Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea and a man of extensive and useful learning, and a liberal theologian; Lactantius, a professor of eloquence in Nicomedia, and a man of elegant culture; Hosius, bishop of Cordova and a man of counsel and action.(411) They thus respectively represented the Holy Land, Asia Minor, and Spain; we may add Italy and North Africa, for Lactantius was probably a native Italian and a pupil of Arnobius of Sicca, and Hosius acted to some extent for the whole western church in Eastern Councils. With him Spain first emerges from the twilight of legend to the daylight of church history; it was the border land of the west which Paul perhaps had visited, which had given the philosopher Seneca and the emperor Trajan to heathen Rome, and was to furnish in Theodosius the Great the strong defender of the Nicene faith.

Eusebius, Lactantius, and Hosius were witnesses of the cruelties of the Diocletian persecution, and hailed the reign of imperial patronage. They carried the moral forces of the age of martyrdom into the age of victory. Eusebius with his literary industry saved for us the invaluable monuments of the first three centuries down to the Nicene Council; Lactantius bequeathed to posterity, in Ciceronian Latin, an exposition and vindication of the Christian religion against the waning idolatry of Greece and Rome, and the tragic memories of the imperial persecutors; Hosius was the presiding genius of the synods of Elvira (306), Nicaea (325), and Sardica (347), the friend of Athanasius in the defense of orthodoxy and in exile.

All three were intimately associated with Constantine the Great, Eusebius as his friend and eulogist, Lactantius as the tutor of his eldest son, Hosius as his trusted counsellor who probably suggested to him the idea of convening the first œcumenical synod; he was we may say for a few years his ecclesiastical prime minister. They were, each in his way, the emperor’s chief advisers and helpers in that great change which gave to the religion of the cross the moral control over the vast empire of Rome. The victory was well deserved by three hundred years of unjust persecution and heroic endurance, but it was fraught with trials and temptations no less dangerous to the purity and peace of the church than fire and sword.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 1183): The usual name is probably derived from Tertullian, who calls the followers of the apostles, Apostolici,) *D**e Carne, 2; Proescr, Haer.* 30). Westcott calls them sub-apostolic, Donaldson, ep-apostolic.

(2; original 1184): "The most striking feature of these writings," says Donaldson (p. 105),"is the deep living piety which pervades them. It consists in the warmest love to God, the deepest interest in man, and it exhibits itself in a healthy, vigorous, manly morality."

(3; original 1185): Like the N. T. Epistles, the writings of the Apostolic fathers generally open with an inscription and Christian salutation, and conclude with a benediction and doxology. The Ep. of Clement to the Corinthians beginning thus (ch. 1.): "The church of God, which sojournes in Rome to the church of God which sojournes in Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, be multiplied unto You." (Comp. 1 Cor. 1:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:2.) It concludes (ch. 65, formerly ch. 59): "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all men everywhere who are called of God through Him, through whom be glory, honor, power, majesty, and eternal dominion unto Him from the ages past to the ages of ages. Amen."—The Ep. of Polycarp begins: " Polycarp, and the presbyters that are with him, to the church of God sojourning in Philippi: Mercy unto you and peace from God Almighty and from the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, be multiplied;" and it concludes."Grace be with you all. Amen." The Ep. of Barnabas opens and closes in a very general way, omitting the names of the writer and readers. The inscriptions and salutations of the Ignatian Epistles are longer and overloaded, even in the Syriac recension.

(4; original 1186): Comp. Euseb. H. E. III. 16; IV. 23, as regards the epistle of Clement, which continued to be read in the church of Corinth down to the time of Dionysius, a.d. 160, and even to the time of Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century. The Pastor Hermae is quoted by Irenaeus IV. 3, as "scriptura." and is treated by Clement of Alex. and Origen (Ad Rom. Comment. X. c. 31) as " scriptura valde utilis et divinitus inspirata."

(5; original 1187): The Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the fifth century contains, after the Apocalypse, the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, with a fragment of a homily; and the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century gives, at the close, the Epistle of Barnabas complete in Greek, and also a part of the Greek Pastor Hermae.

(6; original 1188): Ascribed to Archbishop Whately.

(7; original 1189): Baur, Schwegler, and the other Tübingen critics show great want of spiritual discernment in assigning so many N. T. writings, even the Gospel of John to the borrowed moonlight of the post-apostolic age. They form the opposite extreme to the Roman overestimate of patristic teaching as being of equal authority with the Bible.

(8; original 1190): See above p. 184 sq., and my monograph, third revised edition, 1889.

(9; original 1191): There are six different conjectures. 1) Clement was the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul. So Origen, Eusebius, Jerome. He may have been a Greek or a Roman laboring for a time in Philippi and afterwards in Rome. 2) A distant relative of the emperor Tiberius. So the pseudoClementine romances which are historically confused and worthless. 3) The Consul Flavius Clemens, Domitian’s cousin, who was put to death by him for "atheism" i.e. the Christian faith, a.d. 95, while his wife Domitilla (who founded the oldest Christian cemetery in Rome) was banished to an island. So Hilgenfeld, and, less confidently, Harnack. But our Clement died a natural death, and if he had been so closely related to the emperor, the fact would have been widely, spread in the church. 4) A nephew of Flavius Clemens. So the martyr acts of Nereus and Achilles, and Cav. de Rossi. 5) A son of Flavius Clemens. So Ewald. But the sons of the Consul, whom Domitian appointed his successors on the throne, were mere boys when Clement was bishop of Rome. 6) A Jewish freedman or son of a freedman belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens. Plausibly advocated by Lightfoot (p. 265). The imperial household seems to have been the centre of the Roman church from the time of Paul’s imprisonment (Phil. 4:22). Slaves and freedmen were often very intelligent and cultivated. Hermas )Vis. I. 1) and Pope Callistus )Philos. IX. 12) were formerly slaves. Funk concludes: res non liquet. So also Uhlhorn in Herzog.

(10; original 1192): Renan (p. 313) thinks that he was a Roman Jew. So also Lightfoot. But Justin Martyr had the same familiarity with the Old Testament, though he was a Gentile by birth and education.

(11; original 1193): § 52, p. 166. Bryennios discusses this question at length in his Prolegomena, and comes to the conclusion that Clement was the third bishop of Rome, and the author of both Epistles to the Corinthians. He identifies him with the Clement in Phil. 4:3.

(12; original 1194): "Clément Romain." says the sceptical Renan, once a student of Roman Catholic theology in St. Sulpice."ne fut pas seulement un personnage réel, ce fut un personnage de premier ordre, un vrai chef d’Église, un évêque, avant que l’épiscopat fût nettement constitué j’ oserais presque dire un pape, si ce mot ne faisait ici un trop fort anachronisme. Son autorité passa pour la plus grande de toutes en Italie, en Grèce, en Macédonie, durant les dix dernières années du I^ersiècle. A la limite de l’ âge apostolique, il fut comme unapôtre, un épigone de la grande génération des disciples de Jésus, une des colonnes de cette Eglise de Rome, qui, depuis la destruction de Jérusalem, devenait de plus en plus le centre du christianisme."

(13; original 1195): The Alexandrian Bible codex dates from the fifth century, and was presented by Cyril Lucar, of Constantinople, to King Charles 1. in 1628. Since 1633 the Ep. of Cl. has been edited about thirty times from this single MS. It lacks the concluding chapters (57-66) in whole or in part, and is greatly blurred and defaced. It was carefully reexamined and best edited by Tischendorf (1867 and 1873), Lightfoot (1869 and 1877), Laurent (1870), and Gebhardt (in his first ed. 1875). Their conjectures have been sustained in great part by the discovery of the Constantinopolitan MS. See the critical Addenda in the Append. of Lightfoot, p. 396 sqq.

(14; original 1196): At that time metropolitan of Serrae (metropolivth" Serrw'n)-an ancient see Heraclea), in Macedonia—afterwards of Nicomedia. This Eastern prelate was most cordially welcomed by the scholars of the West, Catholic and Protestant, to an honored place in the republic of Christian learning. His discovery is of inestimable value. In his prolegomena and notes—all in Greek—he shows considerable knowledge of the previous editions of Clement (except that of Lightfoot, 1869) and of modern German literature. It is amusing to find familiar names turned into Greek, as Neander (oJ Nevandro"), Gieseler (oJ Giselevrio"), Hefele (oJ {Efelo"), Dressel (oJ Dressevlio"), Hilgenfeld (oJ JIlgemfevldo"), Jacobson (oJ jIakwbsovnio"), Tischendorf (Kwnstanvti'no" oJ Tisendovrfio"), Thiersch (oJ qeivrsio"), Schroeckh (oJ Sroivkcio"), Schwegler, (oJ Souevglero"), Schliemann (oJ Slimavnno"), Reithmayr (oJ Rei>qmavu>ro"), Uhlhorn (oJ Oujlcovrnio" ejn th'/ Real Encykl. von Herzog ejn levx. Clemens von ROM tom. B v. sel 721; p. xz v), etc. He complains, however, of " the higher" or " lofty criticism" (uJyhlh; kritikhv) and the " episcophobia" (ejpiskofobiva) of certain Germans, and his own criticism is checked by his reverence for tradition, which leads him to accept the Second Epistle of Clement as genuine, contrary to the judgment of the best scholars.

(15; original 1197): The Constantinopolitan codex belongs to the library of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre (tou' Panagivou Tavfou)in the Fanar or Phanar, the Greek district of Constantinople, whose inhabitants, the Fanariotes, were originally employed as secretaries and transcribers of documents. It is a small 8vo parchment of 120 leaves, dates from a.d. 1056, is clearly and carefully written in cursive characters, with accents, spiritus, punctuation (but without jota subscriptum), and contains in addition the second Epistle of Clement in full, the Greek Ep. of Barnabas, the larger Greek recension of the 12 Ignatian Epistles, the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (didach; tw'n dwvdeka ajpostovlwn), and a work of Chrysostom (a Synopsis of the Old and New Testments). The value of this text consists chiefly in the new matter of the first Ep. (about one-tenth of the whole, from the close of ch. 57 to the end), and the remainder of the second. It presents nearly four hundred variations. The Constantinopolitan codex is preferred by Hilgenfeld, the Alexandrian by Lightfoot, Gebhardt and Harnack. The Didache is far more important, but was not published till 1883.

(16; original 1198): This MS. which escaped the attention of French scholars, is now in Cambridge. It was written in the year 1170, in the Convent of Mar Saliba, at Edessa. It contains, with the exception of the Apocalypse, the entire New Testament in the Harclean recension (616) of the Philoxenian version (508), and the two Epistles of Clement between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles (instead of at the close, as in the Alexandrian Cod.), as if they were equal in authority to the canonical books. Bishop Lightfoot (Appendix to S. Clemens p. 238) says, that this Syriac version is conscientious and faithful, but with a tendency to run into paraphrase, and that it follows the Alex. rather than the Constantinopolitan text, but presents also some independent readings.

(17; original 1199): See § 50, p. 157, and § 66, p. 226, 228.

(18; original 1200): Mentioned at the close in ch. 65 (which in the Alex. text is ch. 59). Claudius and Valerius may have been connected with the imperial household as freedmen (Comp. Phil. 4:22). Fortunatus has been identified by some with the one mentioned 1 Cor. 16:17, as a younger member of the household of Stephanas in Corinth.

(19; original 1201): By the author of the Catalogue of contents prefixed to the Alexandrian codex, generally called Cod. A: by Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to Soter of Rome (Euseb. IV, 23); Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 3, § 3); Clement of Alexandria, who often quotes from it; Origen (Comm. in Joan. VI. § 36 and other places); Eusebius )H. E. III. 16; IV. 23; V. 6); Jerome )De Virisillustr. c. 15). Polycarp already used it, as appears from the similarity of several passages. All modern critics (with the exception of Baur, Schwegler, Volkmar, and Cotterill) admit the Clementine origin, which is supported by the internal evidence of style and doctrine. Cotterill’s Peregrinus Proteus (1879), which puts the Clementine Epistles in their present shape among the Stephanic fabrications, is an ingenious literary curiosity, but no serious argument. Renan says (p. 319): "Peu d’ écrits sontaussi authentiques."

(20; original 1202): Dionysius of Corinth (A. D. 170) first mentions the liturgical use of the Epistle in his church. Eusebius (III. 16) testifies from his own knowledge that it was read in very many churches (ejn pleivstai" ejkklhsivai") both in former times and in his own day. Comp. Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 15.

(21; original 1203): 1 Ch. 5. The tevrma th'" duvsew" must be Spain, whither Paul intended to go, Rom. 15:24, 28. To a Roman writing in Rome, Spain or Britain was the Western terminus of the earth. Comp. Strabo II.c. 1, 4; III. 2. The hJgouvmenoi are the Roman magistrates; others refer the word specifically to Tigellinus and Nymphidius, the prefects of the praetorium in 67, or to Helium and Polycletus, who ruled in Rome during the absence of Nero in Greece in 67.

(22; original 1204): Funk gives a list of quotations and parallel passages, Patr. Apost. I. 566-570. From this it appears that 157 are from the O. T., including the Apocrypha and (apparently) the Assumption of Moses, 158 from the N. T., but only three of the latter are strict quotations (ch. 46 from Matt. 26:24, and Luke 17:2; ch. 2 and 61 from Tit. 3:1). Clement mentions by name only one book of the N. T.,ejpistolh; tou' makarivou Pauvlou, with evident reference to I Cor. 1;10 sqq. Comp. also the lists of Scripture quotations in the ed. of Bryennios (p. 159-165), and G. and H. p. 144-155.

(23; original 1205): "When we remember," says Lightfoot, p. 268 sq., "that this prayer issued from the fiery furnace of persecution after experience of a cruel and capricious tyrant like Domitian, it will appear truly sublime—sublime in its utterances and still more sublime in its silence. Who would have grudged the Church, of Rome her primacy, if she had always spoken thus?" Ropes (l. c, p. 343): The sublimity of this prayer gains a peculiar sIgnificance when we remember that it was Domitian in whose behalf it was offered."

(24; original 1206): Renan (p. 314) call, .; his epistle "un beau morceau neutre, dont les disciples de Pierre et ceux de Paul durent se contenter également. Ilest probale qu’il fut un des agents les plus énergetiques de la grande œuvre qué etait en train de s’ accomplir, je veux dire, de la réconciliation posthume de Pierre et de Paul de la fusior des deux partis, sans l’union desquels l’œuvre du Christ ne pouvait que périr."

(25; original 1207): Ch. 32. An echo of Paul’s teaching is found in Polycarp, Ad Phil. c.1, where he refers to "the firm root of their faith, preached to them from olden times, which remains to this day, and bears fruit in our Lord Jesus Christ."

(26; original 1208): Ch. 49.

(27; original 1209): Ch. 46. Comp. Eph. 4:3 sqq.

(28; original 1210): 3 Ch. 20: jWkevano" ajnqrwvpoi" avpevranto" kai; oiJ met j aujto;n kovsmoi tai'" aujtai'" tagai'" tou' despovtou dieuquvnontai. Lightfoot (p. 84) remarks on this passage: "Clement may possibly be referring to some known, but hardly accessible land, lying without the pillars of Hercules. But more probably he contemplated some unknown land in the far west beyond the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of Plato, or the real America of modern discovery." Lightfoot goes on to say that this passage was thus understood by Irenaeus (II. 28, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 12), and Origen ) De Princ. II.6; In Ezech. VIII. 3), but that, at a later date, this opinion was condemned by Tertullian (De Pall. 2 Hermog. 25), Lactantius (Inst. II. 24), and Augustin )De Civit. Dei XVI. 9). For centuries the idea of Cosmas Indicopleustes that the earth was a plain surface and a parallelogram, prevailed in Christian literature.

(29; original 1211): See especially chs. 56, 58, 59, 63, of the Constantinopolitan and Syrian text.

(30; original 1212): Clement, Ad Cor. c. 25. Contrast with this account the fifteenth chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.

(31; original 1213): Tertullian )De Resurrect. 13), Origen (C. Cels. IV. 72), Ambrose (Hexaëm. V. 23, 79), Epiphanius, Rufinus, and other patristic writers. The Phoenix was a favorite symbol of renovation and resurrection, and even of Christ himself, among the early Christians, and appears frequently on coins, medals, rings, cups, and tombstones. But in this point they were no more superstitious than the most intelligent heathen contemporaries. Herodotus heard the marvelous story of the burial of the parent bird by the offspring from Egyptian priests, II. 73. Ovid and other Latin poets refer to it, and Claudian devotes a poem to it. Tacitus (Ann. VI. 28), Pliny ) H. Nat. X. 2), and Dion Cassius LVIII. 27) record that the Phoenix actually reappeared in Egypt, a.d. 34, after In interval of 250 years. According to Pliny the bird was also brought to Rome by a decree of Claudius, and exhibited in the comitium, in the year of the city 800 (A. D. 47). This, of course, was a fraud, but many, and among them probably Clement, who may have seen the wonderful bird from Egypt at the time, took it for genuine. But an inspired writer like Paul would never have made use of such a heathen fable as an argument for a Christian truth. "It is now known," says Lightfoot."that the story owes its origin to the symbolic and pictorial representations of astronomy. The appearance of the phoenix is the recurrence of a period marked by the heliacal rising of some prominent star or constellation." See on the whole subject Henrichsen, De Phoenicis Fabula (Havn. 1825), Cowper, Gebhardt and Harnack, Funk, and Lightfoot on ch. 25 of the Clementine Ep., Piper, Mythologie und Symbolik der christl. Kunst (1847) I. 446 sqq., and Lepsius, Chronologie der Aegypter (1849) 180 sq.

(32; original 1214): Ch. 1. The usual reading is: genomevna", which refers to past calamities. So Cod. C. The Alex. MS. is here defective, probably [genom]evna" .Lightfoot reads with the Syrian version ginomevna", " which are befalling us" (267 and 399), and refers the passage to the continued perils of the church under Domitian.

(33; original 1215): bebaiotavthn kai; ajrcaivan, c. 47.

(34; original 1216): The later date (93-97) is assIgned to the Epistle by Cotelier, Tillemont, Lardner, Möhler, Schliemann, Bunsen, Ritschl, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Donaldson, Bryennios, Harnack, Uhlhorn, Lightfoot (who puts the letter soon after the martyrdom of Flavius Clement, a.d. 95), Funk (who puts it after the death of Domitian, 96). But other writers, including Hugo Grotius, Grabe, Hefele, Wieseler, B. H. Cowper, assIgn the Epistle to an earlier date, and infer from ch. 41 that it must have been written before 70, when the temple service in Jerusalem was still celebrated. "Not everywhere, brethren," says Clement, "are the daily sacrifices offered (prosfevrontai qusivai), or the vows, or the sin-offerings, or the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only; and even there they are not offered prosfevretai) in every place, but only at the altar before the sanctuary, after the victim to be offered has been examined by the high-priest and the ministers already mentioned." This argument is very plausible, but not conclusive, since Josephus wrote a.d. 93 in a similar way of the sacrifices of the temple, using the praesens historicum, as if it still existed, Ant. III. 10. In ch. 6 Clement seems to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem when he says that "jealousy and strife have overthrown great cities and uprooted great nations." Cowper (l.c. p. 16) mentions the absence of any allusion to the Gospel of John as another argument. But the Synoptic Gospels are not named either, although the influence of all the Gospels and nearly all the Epistles can be clearly traced in Clement.

(35; original 1217): Ed. in full by Bryennios, Const. 1875, p. 113-142 with Greek notes; by Funk, with a Latin version (I. 144-171), and by Lightfoot with an English version (380-390).

(36; original 1218): It is first mentioned by Eusebius, but with the remark that it was not used by ancient writers )H. E. III. 38). Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., and Origen know only one Ep. of Clement. Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter to Bishop Soter of Rome, calls it, indeed, "the former" (protevra), but with reference to a later epistle of Soter to the Corinthians (Euseb. H. E. IV. 23). Bryennios, the discoverer of the complete copy, still vindicates the Clementine authorship of the homily, and so does Sprinzl (p. 28), but all other modern scholars give it up. Wocher (1830) assIgned it to Dionysius of Corinth, Hilgenfeld first to Soter of Rome, afterwards (Clem. Ep. ed. II. 1876, p. XLIX) to Clement of Alex. in his youth during his sojourn in Corinth, Harnack (1877) to a third Clement who lived in Rome between the Roman and the Alexandrian Clement, Lightfoot (App. p. 307) and Funk (Prol. xxxix) to an unknown Corinthian before a.d. 140, on account of the allusion to the Isthmian games (c. 7) and the connection with the Ep. of Clement. Comp. above p. 225.

(37; original 1219): Lightfoot (p. 317) calls it a testimony "of the lofty moral earnestness and triumphant faith which subdued a reluctant world, and laid it prostrate at the feet of the cross." but "almost worthless as a literary work."

(38; original 1220): Best edition with Latin version by Beelen: S. Clementis R. Epistolae binae, de Virginitate. Louvain, 1856. German translation by Zingerle (1827), French by Villecourt (1853), English in the "Ante-Nicene Library."

(39; original 1221): Villecourt, Beelen, Möhler, Champagny, Brück.

(40; original 1222): Mansi, Hefele, Alzog, Funk (Prol. XLII. sq.). Also all the Protestant critics except Wetstein, the discoverer. Lightfoot (l. c. p. 15 sq.) assIgns the document to the beginning of the third century. Eusebius nowhere mentions it.

(41; original 1223): See § 56, p. 183 sqq.

(42; original 1224): See § 114, p. 435 sqq.

(43; original 1225): They originated in the east of France between a.d. 829 and 847.

(44; original 1226): qeofovro"," bearer of God."The titles of the Epistles call him jIgnavtio" oJ kai; qeofovro", adding simply the Greek to the Latin name. The Martyrium Ignatii, c. 2, makes him explain the term, in answer to a question of Trajan, as meaning " one who has Christ in his breast."The still later legend (in Symeon Metaphrastes and the Menaea Graeca), by changing the accent. (qeovforo", Theophorus), gives the name the passive meaning, "one carried by God." because Ignatius was the child whom Christ took up in his arms and set before his disciples as a pattern of humilit y (Matt. 18:2). So the Acta Sanctorum, 1 Febr. I. 28. The Syrians called him Nurono, the Fiery, in allusion to his Latin name from Ignis.

(45; original 1227): Ap. Const. VI I. 46: jAntioceiva" Eujovdio" me;n uJp j ejmou' Pevtrou, JIgnavtio" de; uJpo; Pauvlou keceirotovnhtai. According to Eusebius (Chron., ed. Schoene II., p. 158) and Jerome, Ignatius was " Antiochiae secundus episcopus."Comp. Zahn, Ign v. A., p. 56 sqq., and Harnack, Die Zeit des Ign., p. 11 sq.

(46; original 1228): Comp. Zahn, p. 402, who rejects this tradition as altogether groundless: Es fehlt bei Ignatius auch jede leiseste Spur davon, dass er noch aus apostolischem Mund die Predigt gehört habe."He calls himself five times the least among the Antiochian Christians, and not worthy to be one of their number. From this, Zahn infers that he was converted late in life from determined hostility to enthusiastic devotion, like Paul (Comp. 1 Cor. 15:8-10).

(47; original 1229): {O ejsti stratiwtw'n tavgma is added here for explanation by the two Greek versions, and by Eusebius also, H. E. III. 36.

(48; original 1230): qhsauro;" a[timo" Mart. c. 6.

(49; original 1231): Lucian, in his satire on the Death of Peregrinus, represents this Cynic philosopher as a hyocritical bishop and confessor, who while in prison received and sent message, and was the centre of attention and correspondence among the credulous and good-natured Christians in Syria and Asia Minor. The coincidence is so striking that Zahn and Renan agree in the inference that Lucian knew the story of Ignatius, and intended to mimic him in the person of Peregrinus Proteus, as he mimicked the martyrdom of Polycarp. See Renan, Les évangiles, p. 430 sq.

(50; original 1232): Grabe proposes to read, in the Martyr. c, 2, dekavtw/ ejnnavtw/ e{tei, for ejnnavtw/ which would give the year 116. Tillemont and others escape the difficulty by suppossing, without good reason, a double Parthian expedition of Trajan, one in 107 and another in 115 or 116. Comp. Francke: Zur Geschichte Trajan’s. 1837, p. 253 sqq., and Büdinger, Untersuchungen zur röm. Kaisergesch. I. 153 sqq. Nirschl assumes even three oriental expeditions of TraJan. Wieseley and Frank defend the traditional date (107); Harnack puts the martyrdom down to the reIgn of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, but without solid reasons Zahn (p. 58) leaves it indefinite between 107 and 116, Lightf. between 110 and 118,

(51; original 1233): So Uhlhorn, Zahn (248 sq.), Funk (XLVII.). Comp. Lightfoot (II. 390).

(52; original 1234): Polycarp writes to the Philippians (ch. 13), that he had sent them the Epistles of Ignatius (ta;" ejpistola;s jIgnativou, ta;" pemfqeivsa" hJmi'n uJp j aujtou' kai; a[lla"... ejpemyamen uJmi'n). Zahn and Funk maintain that this sylloge Polycarpiana consisted of six epistles, and excluded that to the Romans. (Ussher excluded the Ep. to Polycarp). Irenaeus quotes a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, Adv. Haer. V. 28, § 4. Origen speaks of several letters of Ignatius, and quotes a passage from Romans and another from Ephesians, Prol. in Cant. Cantic. and Hom. VI. in Luc. (III. 30 and 938, Delarue). Zahn (p. 513) finds also traces of Ignatius in Clement of Alexandria and Lucian’s book De Morte Peregrini, which was written soon after the martyrdom of Polycarp.

(53; original 1235): Ad Rom. c. 2, according to the Syriac text; c. 4, in the Greek.

(54; original 1236): Ch. 4 (Syr.), or 5-7 (Gr.).

(55; original 1237): Comp. Phil. 1:23, 24, and Matt. 26:39.

(56; original 1238): Ta;" kakotecniva" feu'ge, according to all the MSS., even the Syriac. Bunsen proposes to read kakotevcnou", in the sense of seductive women, coquettes, instead of kakotecniva" . But this, besides being a mere conjecture, would not materially soften the warning.

(57; original 1239): 2 Tim. ii. 22.

(58; original 1240): Such Roman Catholic writers as Nirschl and Sprinzl find the whole theology and church polity of Rome in Ignatius. Episcopalians admire him for his advocacy of episcopacy; but he proves too little and too much for them; too little because Ignatius knows nothing of a diocesan, but only of a congregational episcopacy; too much because he requires absolute obedience to the bishop as the representative of Christ himself, while the Presbyters represent the apostles. Moreover the Ignatian episcopacy is free from the sacerdotal idea which came in later with Cyprian, but is intimated in Clement of Rome.

(59; original 1241): Calvin, who, however, knew only the spurious and worthless longer recension, calls the Ignatian Epistles abominable trash (Inst. I. 1, c. 13, § 29); Dr. W. D. Killen, who ought to know better, from strong anti-prelatic feeling, speaks of Ignatius, even according to the shorter Syriac recension, as an "anti-evangelical formalist, a puerile boaster, a mystic dreamer and crazy fanatic." (Ancient Church, 1859, p. 414). Neander is far more moderate, yet cannot conceive that a martyr so near the apostolic age should have nothing more important to say than "such things about obedience to the bishops ") Ch. H. I.192, note, Bost, ed.). Baur and the Tübingen critics reject the entire Ignatian literature as a forgery. Rothe on the other hand is favorably impressed with the martyr-enthusiasm of the Epistles, and Zahn (an orthodox Lutheran) thinks the Ignatian epistles in the shorter (Greek recension worthy of a comparison with the epistles of St. Paul (p. 400).

(60; original 1242): Still less by the apostle Peter, the alleged first Pope of Rome; on the contrary, he enters a solemn protest against hierarchical tendencies for all time to come, 1 Pet. 5:14.

(61; original 1243): On the change of date from 166 or 167 to 155 or 156, in consequence of Waddington’s researches, see p. 50.

(62; original 1244): Eusebius, H. E. V. 20.

(63; original 1245): Adv. Haer. iii. 3, § 4.

(64; original 1246): 2 John 10

(65; original 1247): Ch. 7.

(66; original 1248): ·Comp. 1 John 4:3.

(67; original 1249): Comp. 1 Pet. 4:17.

(68; original 1250): Matt. 6:13,

(69; original 1251): Matt. 26:41.

(70; original 1252): Adv. Haer. III. 3, § 4. Comp. Euseb. H E. III. 36, and Jerome De Vir. ill. c. 17.

(71; original 1253): Nor has its integrity been called in question with sufficient reason by Dallaeus, and more recently by Bunsen, Ritschl (in the second ed of his Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, p. 584-600), Renan (Journal des savants, 1874, and less confidently in L’église chret., 1879, p. 442 sqq.), and the author of Supernatural Religion (I. 274-278). But the genuineness and integrity of the Ep. are ably vindicated by Zahn (1873) and by Lightfoot ("Contemp. Rev. ." Feb. 1875, p. 838-852). The testimony of Irenaeus, who knew it ) Adv. Haer. III. 3, § 4), is conclusive. Renan urges chiefly the want of originality and force against it.

(72; original 1254): Ch. 2.

(73; original 1255): jEpistolav" must here probably be understood, like the Latin literae, of one epistle.

(74; original 1256): Gal. 4:26.

(75; original 1257): proagouvsh".

(76; original 1258): Ch. 3.

(77; original 1259): Cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi oujk ejx e[rgwn, ajllav qelhvmati qeou', dia; jIhsou' Cristou', comp. Eph. 2:8, 9.

(78; original 1260): Funk (I. 573 sq.), counts only 6 quotations from the O. T., but 68 reminiscences of passages in Matthew (8), Mark (1), Luke (1), Acts (4), Romans, Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., James (1). 1 Pet. (10), 2 Pet. (1 and 2 John. Comp. the works on the canon of the N. T.

(79; original 1261): All sorts of corrections, accordingly, have been proposed for peristerav in ch. 16; e.g. ejp j ajristera'/ a sinistra, or periv; stevrna, or perivptera ai[mato" (scintillarum instar sanguinis), or peri; stuvraka (circa hastile, around the spike). Comp. Hefele: Patr. Ap. p. 288 (4^th ed.) note 4; and Funk (5^th ed) 299. Funk reads peri;stuvraka, which gives good sense. So also the ed. of Gebh. and Harn.

(80; original 1262): Keim (1873), and Lipsius (1876) reject the whole Martyrium. Steitz (1861), Zahn (1876), and Funk (Prol XCVII.) the last two chapters as later additions. Donaldson (p. 198 sqq.) assumes several interpolations which make it unreliable as a historical document, but admits that it is superior to the later martyria by its greater simplicity and the probability of the most part of the narrative, especially the circumstances of the flight and capture of Polycarp.

(81; original 1263): oujc wJ" didavskalo" , ajll j wJ" ei|" ejx uJmw'n, ch. 1; Comp. 4: polla;/ qevlwn gravfein, oujc wJ" didavskalo" .

(82; original 1264): The Cod. Sinaiticus omits ’Amen."and adds at the close: JEpistolh; Barnavba..

(83; original 1265): The last chapters are derived either from the Didache, or from a a still older work, Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri, which may have been the common source of both. See my work on the Didache, p. 227 sqq., 305, 309, 312 sq., 317.

(84; original 1266): Ch. 2:oJ kaino;" novmo" tou' Kurivou hJmw'n jI.C., a[vneu (a[ter)zugou' ajnavgkh" w[n

(85; original 1267): Ch. 4:sunetrivbh aujtw'n hJ diaqhvkh, i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou jIhsou' ejgkatasfragisqh'_ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th''" pivstew" aujtou'.

(86; original 1268): Cap. 4 at the close:prosevcwmen mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloiv klhtoi;, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men. From Matt. 22:14. As long as the fourth chapter of this epistle existed only in Latin, the words: "sicut scriptum est" were suspected by Dr. Credner and other critics as an interpolation, Hilgenfeld (1853) suggested that the original had simply kaqwv" fhsin, and Dressel, in his first edition of the Apostolic Fathers (1857), remarked in loc: "Voces ’sicut scriptum est’ glossam olent." But the discovery of the Greek original in the Sinaitic MS. of the Bible has settled this point, and the Constantinopolitan MS. confirms it. The attempt of Strauss and other sceptics to refer the quotation to the apocryphal fourth Book of Esdras, which was probably written by a Jewish Christian after the destruction of Jerusalem, and contains the passage: ’Many are born, but few will be saved."is only worth mentioning as an instance of the stubbornness of preconceived prejudice.

(87; original 1269): Funk (I. 364-366) gives nine quotations from Genesis, thirteen from Exodus, six from Deuteronomy, fourteen from the Psalms, twenty-six from Isaiah, etc., also one from IV. Esdras, four from Enoch. Comp. the list in Anger’s Synopsis Evang. (1852), Gebh. and Harn., 217-230.

(88; original 1270): See Acts 1:23; 4:37; 9:26 sq.; 11:22, 30; 14:4, 14; 15:2, etc. Clement of Alex. quotes the Epistle seven times (four times under the name of Barnabas), in his Stromtata, Origen, his pupil, three or four times (Contra Cels. I. 63; De Princ. III. 2; Ad Rom. I. 24). Tertullian does not mention the epistle, but seems to have known it (Comp. Adv, Marc. III. 7; Adv. Jud. 14); he, however, ascribes the Ep, to the Hebrews to Barnabas )De Pudic. c. 20). Hefele and Funk find probable allusions to it in Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Hermas; but these are uncertain. On the life and labors of Barnabas see especially Hefele and Braunsberger (p. 1-135).

(89; original 1271): In H. E. III. 25, Eusebius counts it among the "spurious" books (ejn toi'" novqoi" ... hJ feromevnh Barnavba ejpistolhv),but immediately afterwards and in VI. 14, among the "doubtful" (ajntilegovmena), and Jerome (De Vir. ill. c. 6), "inter apocryphas scripturas."

(90; original 1272): Voss, Dupin, Gallandi, Cave, Pearson, Lardner, Henke, Rördam, Schneckenburger, Franke, Gieseler, Credner, Bleek (formerly), De Wette, Möhler, Alzog, Sprinzl ("genuine, but not inspired "), Sharpe. The interpolation hypothesis of Schenkel (1837) and Heydeke (1874) is untenable; the book must stand or fall as a whole.

(91; original 1273): So Ussher, Daillé, Cotelier, Tillemont, Mosheim, Neander, Ullmann, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hefele, Döllinger, Kayser, Donaldson, Westcott, Müller, Wieseler, Weizsäcker, Braunsberger, Harnack, Funk. Hefele urges eight arguments against the genuineness; but five of them are entirely inconclusive. See Milligan, l. c., who examines them carefully and concludes that the authenticity of the Epistle is more probable than is now commonly supposed.

(92; original 1274): Or "sinners above all sin," uJpe;r pa'san aJmartivan ajnomwtevrou",homines omni peccato iniquiores, c. 5. Paul might call himself in genuine humility " the chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), with reference to his former conduct as a persecutor; but he certainly would not have used such a term of all the apostles nor would it be true of any of them but Judas.

(93; original 1275): He is also charged with several blunders concerning Jewish history and worship which can hardly be expected from Barnabas the Levite. Comp. chs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15. But this is disproved by Braunsberger (p. 253 sqq.), who shows that the epistle gives us interesting archaeological information in those chapters although he denies the genuineness.

(94; original 1276): He is twice called an apostle, Acts 14:4, 14, being included with Paul in ajpovstoloi.

(95; original 1277): So Neander, Möhler, Hefele (1840), Funk, GüdemAnn. On the other hand, Lardner, Donaldson, Hilgenfeld, Kayser, Riggenbach, Hefele (1868), Braunsberger, Harnack contend that Barnabas and his readers were Gentile Christians, because he distinguishes himself and his readers (hJmei'") from the Jews chs. 2, 3, 4, 8. 10, 14, 16. But the same distinction is uniformly made by John in the Gospel, and was quite natural after the final separation between the church and the synagogue. The mistakes in Jewish history are doubtful and less numerous than the proofs of the writer’s familiarity with it. The strongest passage is ch. 16: " Before we became believers in God, the house of our heart was ... full of idolatry and the house of demons, because we did what was contrary to God’s will."But even this, though more applicable to heathen, is not inapplicable to Jews; nor need we suppose that there were no Gentiles among the readers. Towards the close of the second century there were probably very few unmixed congregations. Lipsius and Volkmar seek the readers in Rome, Müller in Asia Minor, Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, and Funk in Alexandria or Egypt. There is a similar difference of opinion concerning the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

(96; original 1278): Ch. 16 compared with the explanation of Daniel’s prophecy of the little horn in ch. 4.

(97; original 1279): Hefele, Kayser, Baur, Müller, Lipsius, put the composition between 107 and 120 (before the building of Aelia Capitolina under Hadrian), and Braunsberger between 110 and 137; but Hilgenfeld, Reuss )Gesch. d. N. T, 4^th ed., 1864, p. 233), Ewald )Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. 136), Weizsäcker (" in Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol.," 1865, p. 391, and 1871, p. 569), Wieseler (Ibid. 1870, p. 603-614), and Funk (Prol. p. VI.), at the close of the first century, or even before 79. Wieseler argues from the author’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the ten kingdoms and the little horn (ch. 4 and 16), that the Ep. was written under Domitian, the eleventh Rom. emperor, and "the little horn" of Daniel. Weiszäcker and Cunningham refer the little hero to Vespasian (79-79), Hilgenfeld to Nerva; but even in the last case the Ep. would have been written before a.d. 98, when Nerva died. Milligan concludes that it was written very soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. But in fresh view of that terrible judgment, we can scarcely account for the danger of apostasy to Judaism. The author’s aim seems to presuppose a revival of Judaism and of Jewish tendencies within the Christian Church.

(98; original 1280): Pastor Hermae, JO Poimhvn. Comp. Vis. I. 1, 2, 4; II. 2.

(99; original 1281): This division, however, is made by later editors.

(100; original 1282): So v. Gebh. and Hilgenf. ed. II., with Cod. Sin. But the MSS. vary considerably. The Vatican MS. reads: vendidit quandam puellam Romae. The words, eijs JRwvmhn would indicate that the writer was not from Rome; but he often confounds eij" and ejn.

(101; original 1283): In the Visions andMandates the person of the Redeemer is mentioned only three times; in the Similitudes Hermas speaks repeatedly of the "Son of God." and seems to identify his pre-existent divine nature with the Holy Spirit. Sim. I X. 1 tov pneu'ma tov a{gion... oJ qeo;" tou' qeou' ejstivn. But a passage in a parable must not be pressed and it is differently explained. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Ap. Väter, 166 sq., Harnack’s notes on Sim. V. 5 and IX. 1; the different view of Zahn, 139 sqq. and 245 sqq., and especially Link’s monograph quoted above (p. 680).

(102; original 1284): This is the natural interpretation of the carious passage Simil. IX. 16: These apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached to those also who were asleep and gave to them the seal of preaching. They descended therefore into the water with them and again ascended (katevbhsan oumet j aujtw'n eij" to; u{dwr kai; pavlin ajnevbhsan). But these descended alive and again ascended alive; but those who had fallen asleep before descended dead (nekroiv) and ascended alive (xw'nte")."This imaginary post-mortem baptism is derived from the preaching of Christ in Hades, 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6. Clement of Alex. quotes this passage with approbation, but supposed that Christ as well as the apostles baptized in Hades. Strom. II. 9. 44; VI. 6, 45, 46. Cotelier and Donaldson (p. 380) are wrong in interpreting Hermas as meaning merely a metaphorical and mystical baptism, or the divine blessings symbolized by it.

(103; original 1285): The last is expressly quoted in the Second Vision.

(104; original 1286): As is done by, the Tübingen School, but without unanimity. Schwegler, and, with qualifications, Hilgenfeld and Lipsius represent Hermas as an Ebionite, while Ritschl on the contrary assigns him to the school of Paul. There is no trace whatever in Hermas of the essential features of Ebionism circumcision, the sabbath, the antipathy to Paul;-nor on the other hand of an understanding of the specific doctrines of Paul. Uhlhorn his the point )l.c. p. 13): "Hermas ist ein Glied der damaligen orthodoxen Kirche, und seine Auffassung der christlichen Lehre die eines einfachen Gemeindegliedes one be stimmte Ausprägung irgend eines Parteicharakters."

(105; original 1287): See the list of Scripture allusions of Hermas in Gebhardt’s ed. p. 272-274; in Funk’s ed. I. 575-578; Hilgenfeld, Die Ap. Väter, 182-184; Zahn, Hermae Pastore N. T. illustratus, Gött. 1867; and D. Hirt d. H. 391-482. Zahn discovers considerable familiarity of H. with the N. T. writings. On the relation of Hermas to John see Holtzmann, in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol." 1875, p. 40 sqq.

(106; original 1288): So Origen (his opinion, puto enim, etc.), Eusebius, Jerome, probably also Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria; among recent writers Cotelier, Cave, Lardner, Gallandi, Lumper, Lachmann, Sprinzl.

(107; original 1289): Gaâb, Zahn, Caspari, Alzog, Salmon (in "Dict. of Chr. Biog. II. 912 sqq.).

(108; original 1290): "Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma (Hermas) conscripsit, sedente, [in] cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. Et ideo legi cum quidem opportet, se[d] publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum [read: completos] numero, neque inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest." The same view is set forth in a poem of pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion:

Post hunc [Hyginus] deinde Pius, Hermas, cui germine frater,

Angelicus Pastor, qui tradita verba locutus."

It is also contained in the Liberian Catalogue of Roman bishops (A. D. 354), and advocated by Mosheim, Schröckh, Credner, Hefele, Lipsius, Ritschl, Heyne, v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Brüll, Funk, Uhlhorn, Baumgärtner. Others assume that the brother of Pius was the author, but simulated an elder Hermas.

(109; original 1291): Hilgenfeld desIgnates these authors H. a= Hermas apocalypticus H. P. = Hermas pastoralis H. s. = Hermas secundarius. See Prol. p. XXI. sq. Thiersch, Count de Champagny (Les Antonins, ed. III 1875, T. I, p. 144) and Guéranger likewise assumed more than one author. But the book is a unit. Comp. Harnack versus Hilgenfeld in the "Theol." Literatur-Zeitung" for 1882, f. 249 sqq., Link, Baumgärtner, Lambros, quoted above.

(110; original 1292): In Vis. II. 4 Hermas receives the command to write "two books and to send one to Clement and one to Grapte; " and Clement was to send the books to foreign cities (eij" ta;" e[xw povlei"). This seems to imply that he was the well known bishop of Rome. Grapte was a deaconess, having charge of widows and orphans. The opinion of Origen that Clement and Grapte represent the spiritual and literal methods of interpretation is merely an allegorical fancy. Donaldson and Harnack assume that Clement is an unknown person, but this is inconsistent with the assumed authority of that person.

(111; original 1293): He is told in the Second Vision, ch. 2: "Your seed, 0 Hermas, has sinned against God, and they have blasphemed against the Lord, and in their great wickedness they, have betrayed their parents ... and their iniquities have been filled up. But make known these words to all your children, and to your wife who is to be your sister. For she does not restrain her tongue, with which she commits iniquity; but on hearing these words she will control herself, and will obtain mercy." The words "who is to be your sister" probably refer to future continence or separation. Tillemont and Hefele regard Hermas as a presbyter, but Fleury, Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Zahn, Uhlhorn and Salmon as a layman. He always speaks of presbyters as if he were not one of them, and severely censures the Roman clergy. Justin Martyr was also a lay-preacher, but with more culture.

(112; original 1294): Zahn infers from the Jewish Greek idiom of Hermas that he grew up in Jewish circles and was perhaps acquainted with the Hebrew language. On the other hand Harnack supposes (Notes on Vis. I. 1) that Hermas was descended from Christian parents, else he would not have omitted to inform us of his conversion in the house of Rhoda. Hilgenfeld (p. 138) makes Hermas a Jew, but his master, who sold him, a Gentile. Robinson conjectures that he was a Greek slave )Sim. IX.) and wrote reminiscences of his youth.

(113; original 1295): The church officers appear as a plurality of presbuvteroi, or seniores, or praesides, of equal rank, but Clement of Rome is supposed to have a certain supervision in relation to foreIgn churches. Vis. II., 2, 4; III, 9; Simil. IX., 31. In one passage )Vis. III., 5) Hermas mentions four officers "apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons." The "bishops" here include presbyters, and the "teachers " are either all preachers of the gospel or the presbyter-bishops in their teaching (as distinct from their ruling) capacity and function. In other passages be names only the ajpovstoloi and didavskaloi, Sim. IX., 15, 16, 25; comp. Paul’s poimevne" kaiv didavskaloi, Eph. 4:11. The statements of Hermas on church organization are rather loose and indefinite. They have been discussed by Hilgenfeld and Harnack in favor of presbyterianism, by Hefele and Rothe in favor of episcopacy. Lightfoot, who identifies Hermas with the brother of bishop Pius (140), says: " Were it not known that the writer’s own brother was bishop of Rome (?), we should be at a loss what to say about the constitution of the Roman church in his day."(Com. on Philipp., p. 218.)

(114; original 1296): Adv. Haer. IV. 20, § 2: eihJ grafh; hJ levgousa. Then follows a quotation from Mand. I. 1: "First of all believe that there is one God who created and prepared and made all things out of nothing." Possibly the wrong reference was a slip of memory in view of familiar passages, 2 Macc. 7:28 (pavnta ejx oujk oejpoivsen); Heb. 11:3; Mark 12:29 (oJ qeo;" ei" ejstiv); James 2:18 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Hermas was known also to the author of the khvrugma Pevtrou and pseudo-Clement.

(115; original 1297): See the quotations from Clement of Alex. and Origen in G. and H. Prol., p. LIII.-LVI. Zahn says that "the history of the ecclesiastical authority of Hermas in the East begins with an unbounded recognition of the same as a book resting on divine revelation."

(116; original 1298): In private only, or in the church? The passage is obscure and disputed.

(117; original 1299): On account of this comparative mildness (Mand. IV., 1), Tertullian calls Hermas sarcastically "ille apocryphus Pastor maechorum."De Pud. c. 20; comp. c. 10.

(118; original 1300): Jerome calls the Shepherd "revera utilis liber." which was publicly read in certain churches of Greece, and quoted by many ancient writers as an authority, but "almost unknown among the Latins" (apud Latinos’ paene Ignotus). Op. II. 846. In another passage, Op. VI. 604, he condemns the view of the angelic supervision of animals (Vis. IV. 2).

(119; original 1301): See notes at the end of this section.

(120; original 1302): Eusebius, H. E. III. 39, says that he was sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n, " very, small-minded."and that this appears from his writings; but he was no doubt unfavorably influenced in his judgment by the strong millennarianism of Papias, which he mentions just before; and even if well founded, it would not invalidate his testimony as to mere facts. In another place (III. 36), Eusebius calls him a man of comprehensive learning and knowledge of the Scriptures (ajnh;r ta; pavnta o{ti mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eujdhvmwn, omni doctrinae genere instructissimus et in scriptura sacra versatus). Learning, piety, and good sense are not always combined. The passage, however, is wanting in some MSS. of Eusebius. See the note of Heinichen, vol. I. 141 sqq.

(121; original 1303): para; zwvsh" fwnh'" kai; menouvsh" Eus. III. 39 (Heinichen, 1. 148).

(122; original 1304): Logivwn kuriskw'n ejxhvghsi", Explanatio sermonum Domini. The word ejxhvghsi" here no doubt means interpretation of some already existing gospel record, since Anastasius of Sinai (d. 599) classes Papias among Biblical exegetes or interpreters. He probably took as his text the canonical Gospels, and gave his own comments on the Lord’s Discourses therein contained, together with additional sayings which he had derived, directly or indirectly, from personal disciples of Christ. Although this work has disappeared for several centuries, it may possibly yet be recovered either in the original, or in a Syriac or Armenian version. The work was still extant in 1218 in the MSS. collection of the church at Nismes, according to Gallandi and Pitra. It is also mentioned thrice in the Catalogue of the Library of the Benedictine Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, contained in the Cottonian MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth centurvy. Donaldson, p. 402. On the meaning of lovgia see Vol. I. 622 sq.

(123; original 1305): See vol. I. p. 622, 633 sq.

(124; original 1306): The plural (ejpi; pollai'" aJmartivai", H. E. III. 39) is no argument against the conjecture. Cod. D reads aJmartiva// instead of moceiva//in John 8:3.

(125; original 1307): See above, §158, p. 616. Card. Pitra, in the first vol. of his Spicileg. Solesm., communicates a similar fragment, but this is, as the title and opening words intimate, a translation of Irenaeus, not of Papias. The authoress of "The Pupils of St. John." p. 203, remarks on that description of Papias: "Understood literally, this is of course utterly unlike anything we know of our blessed Lord’s unearthly teaching; yet it does sound like what a literal and narrow mind, listening to mere word of mouth narrative, might make of the parable of the Vine, and of the Sower, or of the Grain of Mustard-seed; and we also see how providential and how merciful it was that the real words of our Lord were so early recorded by two eye-witnesses, and by two scholarly men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, instead of being left to the versions that good but dull-minded believers might make of them."

(126; original 1308): A mediaeval tradition assigns to Papias an account of the origin, and even a part in the composition, of the Gospel of John as his amanuensis. So a note prefixed to John’s Gospel in a MS. of the ninth century, rediscovered by Pitra and Tischendorf in 1866 in the Vatican library. The note is, in Tischendorf’s opinion, older than Jerome, and is as follows: "Evangelium johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab johanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus discipulus johannis carus in exotericis [exegeticis], id est in extremis, quinque libras retulit. Discripsit vero evangeliumdictante johanne recte." etc. The last sentence is probably a mistaken translation of the Greek. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev. ." Oct. 1875, p. 854; Charteris, Canonicity, p. 168. Another testimony is found in a fragment of a Greek commentator Proaemium of the Catena Patrum Graecorum in S. Johannem, ed. by Corderius. Antwerp, 1630, according to which John dictated his Gospel to Papias of Hierapolis. See Papiae Frag. in Gebh. and Harn’s ed. p. 194. This tradition is discredited by the silence of Eusebius, but it shows that in the opinion of the mediaeval church Papias was closely connected with the Gospel of John.

(127; original 1309): Andreas of Caesarea, In Apoc. c. 34, Serm. 12. See v. G. and H. p. 189.

(128; original 1310): Not even Eusebius or Jerome or Photius make any mention of it. Möhler (Patrol. p. 170) refers to Photius, but Photius speaks of Justin Martyr, with whose writings he was well acquainted. See Hergenröther, Photius, III. 19 sq.

(129; original 1311): IOUSTINOU TOY filosovfou kai; mavrturos jEpistolh; pro;" Diovgnhton, kai; Lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna". lustini Philosophi et Martyris Ep. ad Diognetum, et Oratio ad Graecos, nunc primum luce et latinitate donatae ab Henrico Stephano. Eiusdem Henr. Stephani annotationibus additum est Io. lacobi Beureri de quorundam locorum partim interpretatione partim emendations iudicium. Tatiani, discipuli Iustini, quaedam. Excudebat Henricus Stephanus. Anno MDXCII. The copy of Stephens is still preserved in the University library at Leiden. The copy of Beurer is lost, but was probably made from the Strassburg Codex, with which it agrees in the readings published by Stephens in his appendix, and by Sylburg in his notes.

(130; original 1312): "Epistulae ad Diognetum unum tantummodo exemplar antiquius ad nostram usque pervenit memoriam: codicem dico loannis Reuchlini quondam, postea Argentoratensem, qui misero illo incendio die nono ante Calendas Septembres anni MDCCCLXX cum tot aliis libris pretiosis in ciner es dilapsus est." Von Gebhardt and Harnack, p. 205. They assert, p. 208, that the copies of Stephens and Beurer were taken from the Cod. of Strassburg. Otto (Prol. p. 3) speaks of tres codices, Argentoratensis, apographon Stephani, apoqraphon Beureri."

(131; original 1313): Comp. Ep. ad Diog., c. 1, with Marcus Aur. Medit., IX. 3 (his only allusion to Christianity, quoted p. 329). Marcus Aurelius gratefully remembers his teacher Diognetus Medit., I.6. Diognetus was not a rare name; but the one of our Epistle was a person of social prominence, as the term kravtisto", honorable, implies. Otto and Ewald identify the two. Keim and Dräseke (p. 141) admit that our Diognetus belonged to the imperial court, but put him later.

(132; original 1314): Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. VII. p. 150) places it first among all the early Christian epistles which were not received into the N. T., and says that it combines perfectly "the fulness and art of Greek eloquence with the purest love of truth, and the ease and grace of words with the elevating seriousness of tlle Christian." Bunsen: "Indisputably, after Scripture, the finest monument of sound Christian feeling, noble courage, and manly eloquence." Semisch (in Herzog) calls it "ein Kleinod des christl. Alterthums, welchem in Geist und Fassung kaum ein zweites Schriftwerk der nachapostolishen Zeit gleichsteht." Keim (Rom und das Christenthum, p. 463 sq.) calIs it "das lieblichste, ja ein fast zauberhaftes Wort des zweiten Jahrhunders." and eloquently praises "die reine, klassische Sprache, den schönen, korrekten Satzbau, die rhetorische Frische, die schlagenden Antithesen, den geistreichen Ausdruck, die logische Abrundung ... die unmittelbare, liebswarme, begeisterte, wenn schon mit Bildung durchsättigte Frömmigkeit."

(133; original 1315): Quoted above, § 2, p. 9.

(134; original 1316): See above, § 153, p. 587.

(135; original 1317): "As if no less a person than Paul himself had returned to life for that age." Ewald, vii. 149.

(136; original 1318): jApostovlwn genovmeno" maqhthv" ch. 11.

(137; original 1319): The Justinian authorship is defended by Cave, Fabricius, and Otto, but refuted by Semisch, Hefele, Keim, and others.

(138; original 1320): Tillemont and Möhler to the first century, Hefele and Ewald to the reign of Hadrian (120-130). Westcott (Can. N. T. p. 76): Not before Trajan, and not much later; everything betokens an early age.

(139; original 1321): So Keim, who suggests the bloody year 177.

(140; original 1322): So Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Gass, Zahn, Dräseke (under Septimus Severus, between 193-211). Overbeck’s hypothesis of a post-Constantinian date is exploded.

(141; original 1323): Justin M. (the MS. tradition); Marcion before his secession from the church(Bunsen); Quadratus Dorner); Apelles, the Gnostic in his old age (Dräseke, p. 141). The writer of the art. in Smith and Wace, II. 162, identifies the author with one Ambrosius, "a chief man of Greece who became a Christian, and all his fellow councillors raised a clamor against him." and refers to Cureton’s Spicil. Syriacum, p. 61-69. The Stephanie hypothesis of and Cotterill is a literary and moral impossibility.

(142; original 1324): Irenaeus )Adv. Haer. 1.III.c. 3, § 3) mentions him as the Roman bishop after Clement, Evaristus, and Alexander. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 5) relates that he ruled the Roman church for ten years. Jaffé )Regesta Ponti cum Rom. p. 3) puts his pontificate beween 119 and 128. The second Pope of that name died a martyr a.d. 257 or 258. The two have been sometimes confounded as authors of the Enchiridion. Siber published it under the name of Sixtus II.

(143; original 1325): See specimens in the Notes.

(144; original 1326): See the references in the Biblioth. Max. III. 525; and in Fontanini and Fabricius, l. c.

(145; original 1327): Neander, Gieseler, Baur, Donaldson, and others do not even mention the book.

(146; original 1328): Geschichte Israels, vol. VII. p. 322. Compare his review of Lagardii Analecta Syriaca in the "Göttingen Gel. Anzeigen." 1859, p. 261-269. Both Ewald and P. de Lagarde, his successor, characteristically ignore all previous editions and discussions.

(147; original 1329): Hist. Eccl. IV. 3.

(148; original 1330): The discovery has called forth a considerable literature which is mentioned by Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, etc., I., p. 110, note 23. The first part is the most important. See a French translation by Gautier, in the "Revue de théol. et de philos., " 1879, p. 78-82; a German translation by Himpel in the "Tübing. Theol. Quartalschrift, " 1880, reprinted by Harnack, pp. 111 and 112. The art. Aristides in the first vol. of Smith and Wace (p. 160) is behind the times. Bücheler and Renan doubt the genuineness of the document; Gautier, Baunard, Himpel, Harnack defend it; but Harnack assumes some interpolation, as the term theotokos, of the Virgin Mary. The Armenian MS. is dated 981, and the translation seems to have been made from the Greek in the fifth century. At the time of Eusebius the work was still well known in the church. But the second piece, which the Mechitarists also ascribe to Aristides, is a homily of later date, apparently directed against Nestorianism.

(149; original 1331): The bracketed sentence sounds repetitious and like a post-Nicene interpolation.

(150; original 1332): See above, § 38, p. 107, and l.c. I. 115-130.

(151; original 1333): Tertullian (Adv. Valent. 5) first calls him philosophus et martyr, Hippolytus (Philos. VIII. 16), "Just. Martyr;" Eusebius (H. E. IV. 12), "a genuine lover of the true philosophy, " who "in the garb of a philosopher proclaimed the divine word and defended the faith by writings" (IV. 17).

(152; original 1334): Dial.c. Tryph. Jud. c. 2-8. The conversion occurred before the Bar-Cochba war, from which Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. Archbishop Trench has reproduced the story in thoughtful poetry (Poems, Lond. 1865, p. 1-10).

(153; original 1335): This city may be Flavia Neapolis, or more probably Ephesus, where the conversation with Trypho took place, according to Eusebius (IV. 18). Some have located the scene at Corinth, others at Alexandria. Mere conjectures.

(154; original 1336): Apol. II. 12, 13.

(155; original 1337): Tillemont and Maran (in Migne’s ed. Col. 114) infer from his mode of describing baptism (Apol. I. 65) that he baptized himself, and consequently was a priest. But Justin speaks in the name of the Christians in that passage ("We after we have thus washed him, " etc.) and throughout the Apology; besides baptism was no exclusively clerical act, and could be performed by laymen. Equally inconclusive is the inference of Maran from the question of the prefect to the associates of Justin (in the Acts of his martyrdom): "Christianos vos ferit Justinus?"

(156; original 1338): trivbwn, tribwvnion, pallium, a threadbare cloak, adopted by philosophers and afterwards by monks (the cowl) as an emblem of severe study or austere life, or both.

(157; original 1339): qilovsofe, Cai're !

(158; original 1340): I add the estimate of Pressensé (Martyrs and Apologists, p. 251): "The truth never had a witness more disinterested, more courageous, more worthy of the hatred of a godless age and of the approval of Heaven. The largeness of his heart and mind equalled the fervor of his zeal, and both were based on his Christian charity. Justin derived all his eloquence from his heart; his natural genius was not of rare order, but the experiences of his early life, illumined by revelation, became the source of much fruitful suggestion for himself, and gave to the Church a heritage of thought which, ripened and developed at Alexandria, was to become the basis of the great apology of Christianity. If we except the beautiful doctrine of the Word germinally present in every man, there was little originality in Justin’s theological ideas. In exegesis he is subtle, and sometimes puerile; in argument he flags, but where his heart speaks, he stands forth in all his moral greatness, and his earnest, generous words are ever quick and telling. Had he remained a pagan he would have lived unnoted in erudite mediocrity . Christianity fired and fertilized his genius, and it is the glowing soul which we chiefly love to trace in all his writings."

(159; original 1341): The year of composition cannot be fixed with absolute certainty. The First Apology is addressed "To the Emperor (aujtokravtori)Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus, Pius, Augustus Caesar; and to Verissimus, his son, philosopher [i.e. Marcus Aurelius]; and to Lucius, the philosopher [?]—son by nature of a Caesar [i.e. Caesar Aelius Verus] and of Pius by adoption and to the sacred Senate;-and to the whole Roman people, " etc. The address violates the curial style, and is perhaps (as Mommsen and Volkmar suspect) a later addition, but no one doubts its general correctness. From the title "Verissimus, " which Marcus Aurelius ceased to bear after his adoption by Antonine in 138, and from the absence of the title "Caesar" which he received in 139, the older critics have inferred that it must have been written shortly after the death of Hadrian (137), and Eusebius, in the Chronicon, assigns it to 141. The early date is strengthened by the fact that in the Dialogue, which was written after the Apologies, the Bar-Cochba war (132-135) is represented as still going on, or at all events as recent (fugw;n to;n nu'n genovmenon povlemon, ex bello nostra aetate profugus, ch. I; Comp. ch. 9). But, on the other hand, Marcus Aurelius was not really associated as co-regent with Antonine till 147, and in the book itself Tustin seems to imply two regents. Lucius Verus, moreover, was born 130, and could not well be addressed in his eighth year as "philosopher; " Eusebius, however, reads "Son of the philosopher Caesar; " and the term filovsofo" was used in a very wide sense. Of more weight is the fact that the first Apology was written after the Syntagma against Marcion, who flourished in Rome between 139-145, though this chronology, too, is not quite certain. Justin says that he was writing 150 years after the birth of the Saviour; if this is not simply a round number, it helps to fix the date. For these reasons modern critics decide for 147-150 (Volkmar, Baur, Von Engelhardt, Hort, Donaldson, Holland), or 150 (Lipsius and Renan), or 160 (Keim and Aubé). The smaller Apology was written likewise under Antoninus Pius (so Neander, Otto, Volkmar, Hort, contrary to Eusebius, iv. 15, 18, and the two rulers, but only one autocrat, while after his death there were two older view, which puts it in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; for it presupposes " Augusti" or autocrats. See on the chronology Volkmar, Die Zeit Just. des M., in the " Theol. Jahrb."of Tübingen, 1855 (Nos. 2 and 4); Hort On the Date of Justin M., in the " Journal of Classic and Sacred Philology, " June 1856; Donaldson, II. 73 sqq.; Engelhardt, l.c. 71-80; Keim, Rom. u. d. Christenth., p. 425; Renan, l.c. p. 367, note, and Harnack, Texte und Unters., etc. 1. 172 sq.

(160; original 1342): Hort puts the Dial. between 142 and 148; Volkmar in 155; Keim between 160-164; Englehardt in 148 or after.

(161; original 1343): On these anti-heretical works see Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus (1873), Lipsius, Die Quellen der ältesten Letzergeschichte (1875), and Hilgenfeld, D. Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums (1884, p. 21 sqq.).

(162; original 1344): Oratio ad Graecos lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna".

(163; original 1345): See above, § 170, p. 702.

(164; original 1346): Cohortatio ad Graecos, lovgo" parainetiko;" pro;s {Ellhna" . Based on Julius Africanus, as proved by Donaldson, and independently by Schürer in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch."Bd. II. p. 319.

(165; original 1347): On these doubtful and spurious writings see Maranus, Otto, Semisch, Donaldson, and Harnack (l. c. 190-193).

(166; original 1348): On these doubtful and spurious writings see Maranus, Otto, Semisch, Donaldson, and Harnack (l. c. 190-193).

(167; original 1349): Comp, Otto De Justiniana dictione, in the Proleg. LXIII-LXXVI. Renan’s judgment is interesting, but hardly Just. He says (p. 365): "Justin n’était un grand esprit; il manquait à la, fois de philosophie et de critique; son exégèse surtout passerait aujour d’ hui pour très défectueuse; mais il fait preuve dun sens général assez droit; it avait cette espèce, de crédulité médiocre qui permet de raissonner sensément sur des prémisses puériles et de s’arrêter à temps de façon à n’être qu’à moitié absurde." On the next page he says: "Justin était un esprit faible; mais c’était un noble et bon coeur." Donaldson justly remarks (II. 15 sq.) that the faults of style and reasoning attributed to Justin and other Apologists may be paralleled in Plutarch and all other contemporaries, and that more learned and able writers could not have done better than present the same arguments in a more elaborate and polished form.

(168; original 1350): ajpomnhmoneuvmata tw'n ajpostovlwn, a designation peculiar to Justin, and occurring in the Apologies and the Dialogue, but nowhere else, borrowed, no doubt, from Xenophon’s Memorabilia of Socrates. Four times he calls them simply "Memoirs," four times "Memoirs of (or by) the Apostles;" once "Memoirs made by the Apostles, " which constitute the one Gospel (to; eujaggelion, Dial. c. 10), and which "are called Gospels" (a{ kalei'tai eujaggevlia, Apol. I.66, a decisive passage), once, quoting from Mark. "Peter’s Memoirs." After long and thorough discussion the identity of these Memoirs with our canonical Gospels is settled notwithstanding the doubts of the author of Supernatural Religion. It is possible, however, that Justin may have used also some kind of gospel harmony such as his pupil Tatian actually prepared.

(169; original 1351): One unquestionable quotation from John (3:3-5) is discussed in vol. I. 703 sq. If he did not cite the words of John, he evidently moved in his thoughts.

(170; original 1352): See the list of Justin’s Scripture quotations or allusions in Otto’s edition, 579-592. The most numerous are from the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke. Of profane authors he quotes Plato, Homer, Euripides, Xenophon, and Menander.

(171; original 1353): Donaldson (II. 148) infers from his Samaritan origin, and his attempts in one or two cases to give the etymology of Hebrew words (Apol. I. 33), that he, must have known a little Hebrew, but it must have been a very little indeed; at all events he never appeals to the Hebrew text.

(172; original 1354): He calls the Christian religion (Dial. c. 8) movnh filosofiva ajsfalhv" te kai; suvmforo"*,**sola philosophia tuta atque utilis*.

(173; original 1355): teleutai'o" novmo" kai; diaqhvkh kuriwtavth pasw'n, novissima lex et foedus omnium firmissimum. Dial. c. II.

(174; original 1356): Very different from the principle of Hegel: All that is rational is real, and all that is real is rational.

(175; original 1357): He calls them a[crhstoi(useless), Apol. I. 46; with reference to the frequent confusion of Cristov" with crhstov", good. Comp. Apol. I. 4: Cristianoi; ei|nai kathgorouvmeqa: to; de; crhsto;n misei'sqai ouj divkaion. Justin knew, however, the true derivation of Cristov"seeApol. II. 6.

(176; original 1358): On the general subject of the relation of Platonism to Christianity, see Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato (1835, Engl. transl. by Asburv, with preface by Shedd, 1861) Baur, Socrates und Christus (1837, and again ed. by Zeller, 1876); Tayler Lewis, Plato against the Atheists (1845); Hampden, The Fathers of the Greek Philosophy (1862); Cocker, Christianity and Greek Philosophy (1870), Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy (Engl. transl. 1872), and an excellent art. of Prof. W. S. Tyler, of Amherst College in the third vol. of Schaff-Herzog’s Rel. Encycl. (1883, p. 1850-’53). On the relation of Justin to Platonism and heathenism, see von Engelbardt, l. c. 447-484.

(177; original 1359): Comp. Donaldson, III. 27 sqq.

(178; original 1360): He tells his conversion himself, Ad Gr. c. 29 and 30. The following passage (29) is striking: "While I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter [the discovery of the truth], I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discerned that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received, but were prevented by error from retaining."

(179; original 1361): Pro;s {Ellhna", Oratio ad Graecos. The best critical edition by Ed. Schwartz, Leipsig, 1888. On the MSS. see also Otto’s Proleg., and Harnack’s Texte, etc. Bd. I. Heft. I. p. 1-97. English translation by B. P. Pratten, in the "Ante-Nicene Library, " III. 1-48; Am. ed. II., 59 sqq. The specimens below are from this version, compared with the Greek.

(180; original 1362): To; dia; tessavrwn. Eusebius, H. E. IV. 29, and Theodoret, Fab. Haer. I. 20, notice the Diatessaron. Comp. Mösinger’s introduction to his ed. of Ephroem’s Com. (Venet. 1876), Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron (1881), and Ciasca’s edition of the Arabic version (1888) noticed p. 493.

(181; original 1363): The account of Philippus Sidetes, deacon of Chrysostom, as preserved by Nicephorus Callistus, is entirel y unreliable. It makes Athenagoras the first head of the school of Alexandria under Hadrian, and the teacher of Clement of Alex.—a palpable chronological blunder—and states that he addressed hisApology to Hadrian and Antoninus, which is contradicted by the inscription. But in a fragment of Methodius, De Resurrectione, there is a quotation from the Apology of Athenagoras (c. 24) with his name attached.

(182; original 1364): Presbeiva (embassy) peri; Cristianw'n, Legatio (also Supplicatio, Intercessio)pro Christianis. Some take the title in its usual sense, and assume that Athenagoras really went as a deputation to the emperor. The book was often copied in the fifteenth century, and there are seventeen MSS. extant; the three best contain also the treatise on the Resurrection. Both were edited by Henry Stephens, 1557, and often since. The objections against the genuineness are weak and have been refuted.

(183; original 1365): Eusebius H. E. IV. 20, and in his Chron. ad arm. IX. M. Aurelii. His supposed predecessors were Peter, Evodius, Ignatius, Heron, Cornelius, and Eros. Comp. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignat. und die Chronologie der Antiochen. Bischöfe bis Tyrannus (Leipz. 1878 p. 56). Jerome (De Vir. ill. 25; Ep. ad Algas., andPraef, in Com. Matth.), Lactantius (Inst. div. 1. 23), and Cennadius of Massila (De Vir. ill. 34) likewise mention Theophilus and his writings, but the later Greeks, even Photius, seem to have forgotten him. See Harnack, Texte, I. 282 sqq. Renan calls him "un docteur très fécond, un catechiste doné d’un grand talent d’exposition, un polémiste habile selon les idées du temps."

(184; original 1366): qeofivlou pro;" Aujtovlukon, Theophili ad Autolycum. We have three MSS. of his books Ad Autolycum, the best from the eleventh century, preserved in Venice. See Otto, and Donaldson, p. 105. The first printed edition appeared at Zürich, 1546. Three English translations, by J. Betty, Oxf. 1722, by W. B Flower, Lond. 1860, and Marcus Dods, Edinb. 1867 (in the " Ante-Nicene Libr."III. 49-133).

(185; original 1367): Ad Autol. II. 15 (in Migne VI. 1077), where the first three days of creation are called tuvpoi th'" triavdo" , tou' qeou', kai; tou' lovgou autou' kai; th'" sofiva" aujtou' . Comp. c. 18 (col. 1081), where the trinity is found in Gen. 1:26. In the Gospel Com. of Th. the word trinitas occurs five times (see Zahn, l. c. 143). Among Latin writers, Tertullian is the first who uses the term trinitas (Adv Prax. 4; De Pud. 21).

(186; original 1368): Ad Autol. II. 22: "The Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were moved by the Spirit, among whom John says: ’In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God.’" He then quotes John 1:3.

(187; original 1369): This is the English spelling. The Germans and French spell Sardes (Gr. aiJ Sarvdei", but alsoSavrdi" in Herodotus).

(188; original 1370): Renan thinks of an act of self-mutilation (in L’église chrét. 436): "Comme plus tard Origène, il voulut que sa chasteté fût en quelque sorte matériellement constatée." But St. John, too, is called spado by Tertullian (De Monog. 17) and eunuchus by Jerome (In Es. c. 56). Athenagoras uses eujnouciva for male continence, Leg. c. 33:to; ejn parqeneiva/ kai; ejn eujnouciva/ mei'nai/, in virginitate et eunuchi statu manere.

(189; original 1371): Elegans et declamatorium ingenium, " in his lost book on Ecstasis, quoted by Jerome, De Vir. ill. 24. Harnack draws a comparison between Melito and Tertullian; they resembled each other in the variety of topics on which they wrote, and in eloquence, but not in elegance of style.

(190; original 1372): Eusebius (IV. 26) mentions first his Apology for the faith addressed to the emperor of the Romans, and then the following: "Two works On the Passover, and those On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets (to; peri; politeiva" kai; profhtw'n, perhaps two separate books, perhaps kaiv fortw'n),one On the Church, and another discourse On the Lord’s Day (peri; kuriakh'"), one also On the Nature (peri; fuvsew" , al. Faith, pivstew")of Man, and another On his Formation (peri; plavsew") a work On the Subjection of the Senses to Faith [ oJ peri; uJpakoh'" pivstew" aijsqhthrivwn, which Rufinus changes into two books ’de obedientia fidei; de sensibus,’ so also Nicephorus]. Besides these, a treatise On the Soul, the Body, and the Mind. A dissertation also, On Baptism; one also On Truth and Faith, and [probably another on] the Generation of Christ. His discourse On Prophecy, and that On Hospitality. A treatise called The Key (hJ kleiv"), his works On the, Devil, and The Revelation of John. The treatise On God Incarnate (peri; ejnswmavtou qeou', comp.ejnswmavtwsi" = incarnation), and last of all, the discourse (biblivdion) addressed to Antonine."He then add, ; still another book called jEklogaiv, and containing extracts from the Old Testament. Some of these titles may indicate two distinct books, as ta; peri; tou' diabovlou, kai; th'" ajpokaluvyews jIwavnnou.. So Rufinus and Jerome understood this title. See Heinichen’s notes. Other works were ascribed to him by later writers, as On the Incarnation of Christ (peri; sarkwvsew" Cristou' ), On the Cross, On Faith, and two decidedly spurious works, De Passione S. Joannis, and De Transitu b. Mariae.

(191; original 1373): Comp. Euseb. IV. 21, 25. Renan says (p. 192): "Jamais peut-être le christianisme n’a plus écrit que durant le II^esiécle en Asie. La culture littéraire était extrémement répandue dans cette province; l’art d’écrire y était fort commun, et le christianisme en profitait. La littérature des Pères d l’Église commencait. Les siécles suivants ne dépassèrent pas ces premiers essais de l’éloquence chrétienne; mais, au point de vue de l’orthodoxie, les livres de ces Pères du II^esiécle offraient plus d’une pierre el’achoppement. La lecture en devint suspecte; on les copia de moins en moins, et ainsi presque tons ces beaux écrits disparurent, pour faire place aux écrivains classiques, postérieurs au concile de Nicée, écrivains plus corrects comme doctrine, mais, en général, bien moins originaux que ceux du II^esiècle.

(192; original 1374): Under the heading, "The oration of Melito the Philosopher, held before Antonintus Caesar, and he spoke [?] to Caesar that he might know God, and he showed him the way of truth, and began to speak as follows." Ewald (in the "Gött. Gel. Anz." 1856, p. 655 sqq.) and Renan (M. Aur. 184, note) suggest that it is no apology, but Melito’s tract peri; ajlhqeiva" as this word very often occurs. Jacobi, Otto, and Harnack ascribe it to a different author, probably from Syria.

(193; original 1375): A Latin work under the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctae Scripturae was mentioned by Labbé in 1653 as preserved in the library of Clermont College, and was at last, after much trouble, recovered in Strassburg and elsewhere, and published by Cardinal Pitra in the Spicilegium Solesm. 1855 (Tom. II. and III.). But, unfortunately, it turned out to be no translation of Melito’s kleiv"at all, but a mediaeval glossary of mystic interpretation of the Scriptures compiled from Gregory I. and other Latin fathers. This was conclusively proven by Steitz in the " Studien und Kritiken "for 1857, p. 584-596. Renan assents (p. 181, note): "L’ouvrage latin que om Pitra a publié comme étant la Cle de Meliton, est une compilation de passages des Pères latins pouvant servir à l’explication allégorique des écritures qui figure pour la première fois dans la Bible de Théodulphe."

(194; original 1376): Spicileg. Solesm. T. II. p. LIX.

(195; original 1377): This is the spelling of the ancient Greek authors who refer to him. Latin writers usually spell his name Apollinaris or Apollinarius. There are several noted persons of this name: 1) the legendary St. Apollinaris, bishop of Ravenna (50-78?), who followed St. Peter from Antioch to Rome, was sent by him to Ravenna, performed miracles, died a martyr, and gave name to a magnificent basilica built in the sixth century. See Acta Sanct. Jul. V. 344. 2) Apollinarus the Elder, presbyter at Laodicea in Syria (not in Phrygia), an able classical scholar and poet, about the middle of the fourth century. 3) Apollinaris the Younger, son of the former, and bishop of Laodicea between 362 and 380, who with his father composed Christian classics to replace the heathen classics under the reign of Julian, and afterwards originated the christological heresy which is named after him. See my article in Smith and Wace I. 134 sq.

(196; original 1378): H. E. IV. 27; repeated by Jerome, De Viris ill. 26. Two extracts of a work not mentioned by Eusebius are preserved in the Chron. Pasch. Copies of three of his apologetic books, provs {Ellhna" peri; eujsebeiva", peri; ajlhqeiva" , are mentioned by Photius. The last two are probably identical, as they are connected by kaiv. See the fragments in Routh, I. 159-174. Comp. Donaldson III. 243; Harnack, Texte, I. 232-239, and Smith and Wace I. 132.

(197; original 1379): See above, p. 214 sq., and Chron. Pasch. 1. 13.

(198; original 1380): De Vir. ill. 18; Com. in Ezech. c. 36. In the latter place Jerome mentions Irenaeus as the first, and Apollinaris as the last, of the Greek Chiliasts (" ut Graecos nominem, et primum extremumque conjugam, Iren. et Ap."); but this is a palpable error, for Barnabas and Papias were Chiliasts before Irenaeus; Methodius and Nepos long after Apolinarius. Perhaps he meant Apollinaris of Laodicea, in Syria.

(199; original 1381): Acta Sanct. Febr. II. 4. See Wetzer and Welte² I. 1086.

(200; original 1382): H. E. V. 17. Jerome, De Vir. ill. 39. Comp. Harnack, Texte, I. 278-282, and Salmon, in Smith and Wace III. 916.

(201; original 1383): Adv. Valent. 5. Miltiades is here called "ecclesiarum sophista," either honorably = rhetor or philosophus (See Otto and Salmon), or with an implied censure ("mit einem üblen Nebegeschmack, " as Harnack thinks). The relation of Miltiades to Montanism is quite obscure, but probably he was an opponent.

(202; original 1384): Hase aptly calls it "eine oberflächlich witzige Belustigung über paradoxe Philosopheme."

(203; original 1385): Eusebius (iv. 22) expressly calls him "a convert from the Hebrews, " and this is confirmed by the strongly Jewish coloring of his account of James, quoted in full, vol. I. 276 sq. He was probably from Palestine.

(204; original 1386): JUpomnhvmata, or Suggavmmata, in five books.

(205; original 1387): In the library of the convent of St. John at Patmos. See Zahn, l. c.

(206; original 1388): Euseb. IV. 22.

(207; original 1389): Ibid. III. 32. This passage has been used by Baur and his school as an argument against the Pastoral and other apostolic epistles which warn against the Gnostic heresy, but it clearly teaches that its open manifestation under Trajan was preceded by its secret working as far back as Simon Magus. Hegesippus, therefore, only confirms the N. T. allusions, which likewise imply a distinction between present beginnings and future developments of error.

(208; original 1390): ejnqevou filoponiva", Euseb. IV. 23.

(209; original 1391): uJmw'n th;n ejpistolhvn. Euseb. II. 23.

(210; original 1392): Harvey derives from the alleged familiarity of Irenaeus with Hebrew and the Syriac Peshito the conclusion that he was a Syrian, but Ropes denies the premise and defends the usual view of his Greek nationality. See also Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymb III. 343 sq.

(211; original 1393): The change of Polycarp’s martyrdom from 166 to 155 necessitates a corresponding change in the chronology of Irenaeus, his pupil, who moreover says that the Apocalypse of John was written at the end of Domitian’s reign (d. 96), "almost within our age" (scedo;n ejpi; th'" hJmetevra" genea'", Adv. Haer. v. 30, 3). Zahn (in Herzog) decides for 115, Lipsius (in Smith and Wace) for 130 or 125, as the date of his birth. Dodwell favored the year 97 or 98; Grabe 108, Tillemont and Lightfoot 120, Leimbach, Hilgenfeld, and Ropes 126, Oscar von Gebhardt 126-130, Harvey 130, Massuet, Dupin, Böhringer, Kling 140 (quite too late), Ziegler 142-147 (impossible). The late date is derived from a mistaken understanding of the reference to the old age of Polycarp (pavnu ghralevo"but this, as Zahn and Lightfoot remark, refers to the time of his martyrdom, not the time of his acquaintance with Irenaeus), and from the assumption of the wrong date of his martyrdom (166 instead of 155 or 156). The term prwvth hJlikiva, "first age, " which Irenaeus uses of the time of his acquaintance with Polycarp (III. 3, § 4; comp. Euseb. H. E. IV. 14), admits of an extension from boyhood to youth and early manhood; for Irenaeus counts five ages of a man’s life (Adv. Haer I. 22, § 4; 24, § 4—infans, parvullus, puer, juvenis, senior), and includes the thirtieth year in the youth, by calling Christ a juvenis at the time of his baptism. Hence Zahn and Lipsius conclude that the prwvth hJlikivaof Irenaeus’s connection with Polycarp is not the age of childhood, but of early young-manhood."Als junger Mann, " says Zahn."etwa zwischen dem 18. und 35. Lebensjahre, will Ir. sich des Umqangs mit Pol erfreut haben." Another hint is given in the letter of Iren. to Florinus, in which be reminds him of their mutual acquaintance with Polycarp in lower Asia in their youth when Florinus was at "the royal court" (aujlh; basilikhv). Lightfoot conjectures that this means by anticipation the court of Antoninus Pius, when he was proconsul of Asia Minor, a.d. 136, two years before he ascended the imperial throne (Waddington, Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, p. 714). But Zahn reasserts the more natural explanation of Dodwell, that the court of Emperor Hadrian is meant, who twice visited Asia Minor as emperor between the years 122 and 130.

(212; original 1394): See above, § 20, p. 55 sq.

(213; original 1395): Either during, or after the persecution. Euseb. V. S.; Jerome, De Vir. ill c. 35.

(214; original 1396): "The story that his bones were dug up and thrown into the street by the Calvinists in 1562 has been abundantly refuted." Encycl. Brit., ninth ed XIII. 273.

(215; original 1397): This is evident from the very passage in which he makes that apology to his friend (Adv. Haer., Pref. § 3): "Thou wilt not require from me, who dwell among the Celts (ejn Keltoi'"), and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect (bavrbaron diavlekton)any skill in discourse which I have not learned, nor any power of composition which I have not practised, nor any beauty of style nor persuasiveness of which I know nothing. But thou wilt accept lovingly what I write lovingly to thee in simplicity, truthfully, and in my own way (aJplw'" kai; ajlhqw'" kai; ijdiwtikw'"); whilst thou thyself (as being more competent than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seeds and principles (spevrmata kai; ajrcav"); and in the comprehensiveness of thine understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness."Jerome praises the style of Irenaeus as "doctissmus et eloquentissimus," and Massuet (Diss. II. § 51) adds that his " Greek text as far as preserved, is elegant, polished, and grave."

(216; original 1398): Harvey claims for him also Hebrew and Syriac scholarship; but this is disputed.

(217; original 1399): Bishop Lightfoot ("Contemp. Rev." May, 1875, p. 827) says that Irenaeus If on all the most important points conforms to the standard which has satisfied the Christian church ever since."Renan (p. 341) calls him "le modèle de l’homme ecclésiastique accompli."

(218; original 1400): See the long list of his Scripture quotations in Stieren, I. 996-1005, and the works on the Canon of the N. T.

(219; original 1401): Comp. § 62, p. 217 sq.

(220; original 1402): [Elegco" kai; ajnatroph; th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew" (1 Tim. 6:20), i.e.A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called; cited, since Jerome, under the simpler title: Adversus Haereses (pro;" aijrevsei").The Greek original of the work, together with the five books of Hegesippus, was still in existence in the sixteenth century, and may yet be recovered. See Zahn in Brieger’s " Zeitschrift für K. Gesch."1877, p. 288-291. But so far we only have fragments of it preserved in Hippolytus (Philosophumena), Eusebius, Theodoret, and especially in Epiphanius (Haer. XXXl.c. 9-33). We have, however, the entire work in a slavishly literal translation into barbarous Latin, crowded with Grecisms, but for this very reason very valuable. Three MSS. of the Latin version survive, the oldest is the Codex Claromontanus of the tenth or eleventh century. This and the Arundel MS. are now in England (see a description in Harvey’s Preface, i. viii. sqq. with facsimiles). Besides, we have now fragments of a Syrian version, derived from the Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum, and fragments of an Armenian translation, published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense vol. I. (1852), both incorporated in Harvey’s edition, vol. II. 431-469. They agree closely with the Latin Version. An attempt to restore the Greek text from the Latin, for the better understanding of it, has been made on the first four chapters of the third book by H. W. J. Thiersch (" Stud. u. Kritiken," 1842). Semler’s objections to the genuineness have been so thoroughly refuted by Chr. G. F. Walch (De authentia libiorum Irenaei, 1774), that Möhler and Stieren might have spared themselves the trouble.

(221; original 1403): Eleutherus is mentioned, III. 3, 3, as then occupying the see of Rome. Lipsius fixes the composition between a.d. 180 and 185, Harvey between 182 and 188 (L.CLVIII).

(222; original 1404): On the sources of the history, of heresies see especially the works of Lipsius, and Harnack, quoted on p. 443, and Harvey’s Preliminary Observations in vol. I.

(223; original 1405): Adv. Haer. III. 7, § 2.

(224; original 1406): Peri; monarciva" h} peri; tou' mh; ei|nai to;n Qeo;n poihth;n kakw'n. Euseb. H. E. V. 20, comp. ch. 15.

(225; original 1407): Leimbach and Lightfoot regard the letter as one of the earliest writings of Irenaeus, but Lipsius (p. 263) puts it down to about a.d. 190 or after, on the ground of the Syriac fragment, from a letter of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome (190-202) concerning "Florinus, a presbyter and partisan of the error of Valentinus, who published an abominable book." See the fragment in Harvey, II. 457. Eusebius makes no mention of such a letter, but there is no good reason to doubt its genuineness.

(226; original 1408): Peri; ojgdoavdo". Euseb. V. 20.

(227; original 1409): Peri; scivsmato". Also mentioned by Euseb. l. c. Comp. V. 14; Pseudo-Tertullian Adv. Haer. 22; and the Syriac fragment in Harvey II. 456; also the critical discussion of the subject and date by Lipsius, 264 sq.

(228; original 1410): H E. V. 26.

(229; original 1411): biblivon dialevxewn diafovrwn. Harvey and Lipsius make this out to have been a collection of homilies on various texts of scripture.

(230; original 1412): Eusebius H. E. V. I and 2; also in Routh’s Reliquiae S. 1. 295 sqq., with notes. It has often been translated. Comp. on this document the full discussion of Donaldson, III. 250-2S6, and the striking judgment of Renan (l.c. p. 340), who calls it "un des morceaux les plus extraordinaires que possède aucune litterature," and "la perle de la litterature chrétienne au II^esiecle." He attributes it to Irenaeus; Harvey denies it to him; Donaldson leaves the authorship in doubt.

(231; original 1413): Harvey (I. clxxii) accepts them all as "possessing good external authority, and far more convincing internal proof of genuineness, than can alway s be expected in such brief extracts."

(232; original 1414): gnw'si" ajlhqinhv perhaps the same treatise as the one mentioned by Eusebius under the title peri; th'" ejpisthvmh"

(233; original 1415): Discussed in § 69, p. 242.

(234; original 1416): This Lipsius (p. 266) considers to be the only one of the four fragments which is undoubtedly genuine.

(235; original 1417): See § 157, p. 609, and Stieren’s ed. I. 889.

(236; original 1418): Dr. Caspari (III. 351 note 153) thinks it probable that Hippolytus came from the East to Rome in very early youth, and grew up there as a member, and afterwards officer of the Greek part of the Roman congregation. Lipsius (p. 40 sqq.) supposes that Hippolytus was a native of Asia Minor, and a pupil there of Irenaeus in 170. But this is refuted by Harnack and Caspari (p. 409)

(237; original 1419): He calls it schisma Novati, instead of Novatiani. The two names are often confounded, especially by Greek writers including Eusebius.

(238; original 1420): Ultima vox autdita senis venerabilis haec est.

"Hi rapiant artus, tu rape, Christe, animam."

(239; original 1421): No. xi. of the Peristephanon Liber. Plummer, in Append. C. to Döllinger, p. 345-35l, gives the poem in full (246 lines) from Dressel’s text (1860). Baronius charged Prudentius with confounding three different Hippolytis and transferring the martyrdom of Hippolytus, the Roman officer, guard, and disciple of St. Lawrence, upon the bishop of that name. Döllinger severely analyses the legend of Prudentius, and derives it from a picture of a martyr torn to pieces by horses, which may have existed near the church of the martyr St. Lawrence (p. 58).

(240; original 1422): So first the Paschal Chronicle, and Anastasius.

(241; original 1423): Salmon says: ’Of the fragments collected in De Lagardes edition the majority are entitled merely of ’Hippolytus,’ or ’of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr,’ but about twenty describe him as ’bishop of Rome,’ and only three place him elsewhere. The earliest author who can be named as so describing him is Apollinaris in the fourth century .... Hippol. likewise appears as pope and bishop of Rome in the Greek menologies, and is also honored with the same title by the Syrian, Coptic, and Abyssinian churches."See the authorities in Döllinger.

(242; original 1424): The reasons for this early age are: (1) The artistic character of the statue, which ante-dates the decline of art, which began with Constantine. (2) The paschal cycle, which gives the list of the paschal full moons accurately for the years 217-223, but for the next eight years wrongly, so that the table after that date became useless, and hence must have been written soon after 222. (3) The Greek language of the inscription, which nearly died out in Rome in the fourth century, and gave way to the Latin as the language of the Roman church. Dr. Salmon fixes the date of the erection of the statue at 235, very shortly after the banishment of Hippolytus. A cast of the Hippolytus-statue is in the library of the Union Theol. Seminary in New York, procured from Berlin through Professor Piper.

(243; original 1425): Peri; tou' pantov". See the list of books in the notes.

(244; original 1426): On the chair of the statue, it is true, the Philosophumena is not mentioned, and cannot be concealed under the title Pro;s {Ellhna", which is connected by kaiv with the work against Plato. But this silence is easily accounted for, partly from the greater rarity of the book, partly from its offensive opposition to two Roman popes.

(245; original 1427): The authorship of Hippolytus is proved or conceded by Bunsen, Gieseler, Jacobi, Döllinger, Duncker, Schneidewin, Caspari, Milman, Robertson, Wordsworth, Plummer, Salmon. Cardinal Newman denies it on doctrinal grounds, but offers no solution. The only rival claimants are Origen (so the first editor, Miller, and Le Normant), and Cajus (so Baur and Cruice, the latter hesitating between Caius and Tertullian). Origen is out of the question, because of the difference of style and theology, and because he was no bishop and no resident at Rome, but only a transient visitor (under Zephyrinus, about 211). The only claim of Caius is the remark of Photius, based on a marginal note in his MS., but doubted by himself, that Caius wrote a work peri; tou' pantov" and an anti-heretical work called " The Labyrinth," and that he was " a presbyter of Rome," and also declared by some " a bishop of the heathen."But Caius was an anti-Chiliast, and an opponent of Montanism; while Hippolytus was probably a Chiliast, like Irenaeus, and accepted the Apocalypse as Johannean, and sympathized with the disciplinary rigorism of the Montanists, although he mildly opposed them. See Döllinger, l. c. p. 250 sqq. (Engl. translation), Volkmar, l. c. p. 60-71; and Wordsworth,l.c. p. 16-28. Two other writers have been proposed as authors of the Philosophumena, but without a shadow of possibility, namely Tertullian by the Abbé Cruice, and the schismatic Novatian by the Jesuit Torquati Armellini, in a dissertation De priscarefutatione haereseon Origenis nomine ac philosophumenon tituto recens vulgata, Rom.,1862 (quoted by Plummer, p. 354).

(246; original 1428): This idea is borrowed from Irenaeus.

(247; original 1429): The reading here is disputed.

(248; original 1430): The passage is obscure:oJ" th;n aJmartivan ejx ajnqrwvpwn ajpopluvnein prosevtaxe. Wordsworth translates: " who commanded us to wish away sin from man;" Macmahon: " He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings."Bunsen changes the reading thus: " For Christ is He whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins of mankind."Hippolytus probably refers to the command to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

(249; original 1431): biblidavrion. The more usual diminutive of bibliv"or bivblo" is biblivdion.

(250; original 1432): Lipsius, in his Quellenkrilik des Epiphanios, has made the extraordinary achievement of a partial reconstruction of this work from unacknowledged extracts in the anti-heretical writings of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pseudo-Tertullian.

(251; original 1433): As suggested by Fabricius (T., 235), Neander (I. 682, Engl. ed.), and Lipsius. It bears in the MS. the title "Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noëtus" oJmiliva JIppol. eij" ai{resin Nohvtou tino", and was first printed by Vossius in Latin, and then by Fabricius in Greek from a Vatican MS. (vol. II. 5-20, in Latin, vol. I. 235-244), and by P. de Lagarde in Greek (Hippol. Opera Gr. p. 43-57). Epiphanius made a mechanical use of it. It presupposes preceding sections by beginning: "Certain others are privily introducing another doctrine, having become disciple, ; of one Noëtus." The only objection to the identification is that Photius describes the entire work against thirty-two Heresies as a little book (biblidavrion). Hence Lipsius suggests that this was not the suvntagma itself, but only a summary of its contents, such as was frequently attached to anti-heretical works. Döllinger (p. 191 sqq.) shows the doctrinal agreement of the treatise against Noëtus with the corresponding section of the Philosophumena, and finds both heretical on the subject of the Trinity and the development of the Logos as a subordinate Divine personality called into existence before the world by an act of the Father’s will, which doctrine afterwards became a main prop of Arianism. Döllinger finds here the reason for the charge of partial Valentinianism raised against Hippolytus, as his doctrine of the origination of the Logos was confounded with the Gnostic emanation theory.

(252; original 1434): So Volkmar (l.c. p. 165: "Der Cod. Vatic. ’Contra Noëtum’ ist der Schluss nicht jener kürzeren Häreseologie, sondern einer anderen, von Epiphanius noch vorgefundenen Schrift desselben Hippolyt, wie es scheint, gegen alle Monarchianer." Caspari (III. 400 sq.) decides for the same view.

(253; original 1435): Peri; th'" tou' panto;" aijtiva" (or oujsiva", as Hippol. himself gives the title, Philos. X. 32 ed. D. and Schn.), or Peri; tou' pantov"(on the Hippolytus-statue). Greek and Latin in Fabricius I. 220-222. Greek in P. de Lagarde, p. 68-73. The book was a sort of Christian cosmogony and offset to Plato’s Timaeus.

(254; original 1436): Comp. Döllinger, p. 330 sqq. He connects the view of Hippolytus on the intermediate state with his chiliasm, which does not admit that the souls of the righteous ever can attain to the kingdom of heaven and the beatific vision before the resurrection. Wordsworth on the other hand denies that Hippol. believed in a millennium and "the Romish doctrine of Purgatory," and accepts his view of Hades as agreeing with the Burial Office of the Church of England, and the sermons of Bishop Bull on the state of departed souls. Hippol. p. 210-216. He also gives, in Appendix A, p. 306-308, an addition to the fragment of the book On the Universe, from a MS. in the Bodleian library.

(255; original 1437): Smikro;"Labuvrinqo"(Theodoret, Haer. Fa b. II. 5) or spouvdasma kata; th's jArtevmwno" aiJrevsew" (Euseb. H. E. V. 28).

(256; original 1438): Caspari, III. 404 sq., identifies the two books.

(257; original 1439): Peri; carismavtwn avpostolikh; paravdosi". On the Hippolytus-statue.

(258; original 1440): Peri; tou' swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' kai; peri; avnticrivstou , in Fabricius I. 4-36 (Gr. and Lat.), and in P. de Lagarde, 1-36 (Greek only).

(259; original 1441): Included in Jerome’s list, and mentioned by Jacob of Edessa and by Syncellus. Fragments from an Arabic Catena on the Apocalypse in Lagarde’s Anal. Syr., Append. p. 24-27. See Salmon in Smith and Wace, III. 105.

(260; original 1442): See Döllinger, p. 330 sqq. (Engl. ed.)

(261; original 1443): We are indebted for this curious piece of information to Dr. Salmon, who refers to Benson, in the "Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, " I. 190.

(262; original 1444): The name, however, was common, and the New Testament mentions four Caii (Acts 19:29; 20:4; Rom. 16:24; 1 Cor. 1:14; 3 John 1), Eusebius five.

(263; original 1445): ajnh;r ejkklhsiastikov"and logiwvtato" (II. 25 and VT. 20). The former term does not necessarily imply an office, but is rendered by Valesius vir catholicus, by Heinichen (Euseb. Com. III. 64) ein rechtgläubiger Schriftsteller.

(264; original 1446): No doubt the same with the "Proculus noster" commended by Tertullian, Adv. Val. 5. Comp. Jerome (C. 59): "Proculum Montani sectatorem." His followers were Trinitarians; another party of the Montanists were Monarchians

(265; original 1447): See above § 183, p. 762 sq.

(266; original 1448): So Lightfoot in the "Journal of Philology," I. 98. and Salmon, l. c. p. 386.

(267; original 1449): See the document and the discussion about the authorship in Routh. I. 398 sqq., the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace III. 1000 sqq., and the different works on the Canon. Most of the writers on the subject, including Salmon, regard the fragment as a translation from a Greek original, since all other documents of the Roman Church down to Zephyrinus and Hippolytus are in Greek. Hilgenfeld and P. de Lagarde have attempted a re-translation. But Hesse (Das Murator. Fragment, Giessen, 1873, p. 25-39), and Caspari (Quellen, III. 410 sq.) confidently assert the originality of the Latin for the reason that the re-translation into the Greek does not clear up the obscurities. The Latin barbarisms occur also in other Roman writers. Caspari, however, thinks that it was composed by an African residing in Rome, on the basis of in older Greek document of the Roman church. He regards it as the oldest ecclesiastical document in the Latin language ("das älteste in lateinischer Sprache geschriebene originale kirchliche Schriftstück").

(268; original 1450): Eusebius (V. 10; VI. 3, 6) calls it to; th'" kathchvsew" didaskalei'on anddidaskalei' tw'n iJerw'n lovgwn". Sozomen (III. 15), to; iJero;n didaskalei'on tw'n iJerw'n maqhmavtwn; Jerome (Catal. 38), and Rufinus (H. E. II. 7), ecclesiastica schola.

(269; original 1451): Clemens calls him "the Sicilian bee" (sikelikh; mevlitta, perhaps with reference to his descent from Sicily). Jerome (Catal. 36) says of him: "Hujus multi quidem in S. Scripturam exstant commentarii sed magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit." Comp. on him Redepenning; Origenes I.63 sqq., and Möhler in Herzog² XI. 182. The two brief relies of Pantaenus are collected and accompanied with learned notes by Routh, Rel. S. I. 375-383.

(270; original 1452): Is. 7: 9, according to the LXX: e[an mh; pisteuvshte, oujde; mh; sunh'te.

(271; original 1): 453 Klhvmhn". It is strange that he, and not his distinguished Roman namesake, should be called Flavius. Perhaps he was descended from a freedman of Titus Flavius Clemens, the nephew of the Emperor Vespasian and Consul in 95, who with his wife Domitilla was suddenly arrested and condemned on the charge of " atheism," i.e. Christianity, by his cousin, the emperor Domitian.

(272; original 1454): The ajpokavqarsi", and the muvhsi", and the ejpovteia, i.e. purification, initiation, vision.

(273; original 1455): Lovgo" protreptikov" pro;s {Ellhna", Cohortatio ad Graecos, or ad Gentes.

(274; original 1456): Paidagwgov". This part contains the hymn to Christ at the close.

(275; original 1457): Strwmatei'", Stromata, or pieces of tapestry, which, when curiously woven, and in divers colors present an apt picture of such miscellaneous composition.

(276; original 1458): Tiv" oJ swzovmeno" plouvsio", Quis dives salvus orsalvetur? an excellent commentary on the words of the Lord in Mark 10:17 sqq. A most practical topic for a rich city like Alexandria, or any other city and age especially our own, which calls for the largest exercise of liberality for literary and benevolent objects. See the tract in Potter’s ed. II. 935-961 (with a Latin version). It ends with the beautiful story of St. John and the young robber, which Eusebius has inserted in his Church History (III. 23).

(277; original 1459): JUpotupwvsei", Adumbrationes, Outlines, or a condensed survey of the contents of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. See the analysis of the fragments by Westcott, in Smith and Wace, III. 563 sq., and Zahn l.c. 64-103.

(278; original 1460): u{mno" tou' swth'ro" Cristou', written in an anapaestic measure. See § 66, p. 230. The other hymn added to the "Tutor" written in trimeter iambics, and addressed to the paidagwgov" is of later date.

(279; original 1461): jWrigevnh", Origenes, probably derived from the name of the Egyptian divinity Or or Horus (as Phoebigena from Phœbus, Diogenes from Zeus). See Huetius I. 1, 2; Redepenning. I. 421 sq.

(280; original 1462): jAdamavntio" (also Calkevntero"). Jerome understood the epithet to indicate his unwearied industry, Photius the irrefragable strength of his arguments. See Redepenning, I. 430.

(281; original 1463): So Möller (l.c. 92) and others. But it is only an inference from Origen’s view. There is no record as far as I know of his baptism.

(282; original 1464): Lewnivdh" Eus. VI. 1. So Neander and Gieseler. Others spell the name Leonidas (Redepenning and Möller).

(283; original 1465): See Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 236 sqq. (Plummer’s translation).

(284; original 1466): This fact rests on the testimony of Eusebius (vi. 8), who was very well informed respecting Origen; and it has been defended by Engelhardt, Redepenning, and Neander, against the unfounded doubts of Baur and Schnitzer. The comments of Origen on the passage in Matthew speak for rather than against the fact. See also Möller (p. 93).

(285; original 1467): Stephen Binet, a Jesuit, wrote a little book, De salute Origenis, Par. 1629, in which the reading writers on the subject debate the question of the salvation of Origen, and Baronius proposes a descent to the infernal regions to ascertain the truth at last the final revision of the heresy-trial is wisely left with the secret counsel of God. See an account of this book by Bayle, Diction. sub Origene."Tom. III. 541, note 1). Origen’s " gravest errors," says Westcott (l.c.)" are attempts to solve that which is insoluble."

(286; original 1468): Not at the fifth ecumenical council of 553, as has been often, through confusion, asserted. See Hefele, Conciliengesch. vol. II. 790 sqq. and 859 sqq, Möller, however, in Herzog² xi. 113, again defends the other view of Noris and Ballerini. See the 15 anathematisms in Mansi, Conc. ix. 534.

(287; original 1469): His exegetical method and merits are fully discussed by Huetius, and by Redepenning (I. 296-324), also by Diestel, Gesch. des A. T in der christl. Kirche, 1869, p. 36 sq. and 53 sq.

(288; original 1470): Ta; eJxapla', also in the singular form to; eJxaplou'n, Hexaplum (in later writers). Comp. Fritzsche in Herzog² I. 285.

(289; original 1471): Called Quinta (e’), Sexta ("’), and Septima (z’). This would make nine columns in all, but the name Enneapla never occurs. Octapla and Heptap!a are used occasionally, but very seldom. The following passage from Habakkuk 2:4 (quoted Rom. 1:17) is found complete in all the columns:

To; Ebraikovn

To; JEbraiko;n JEllhnikoi'"gravmmasin

!Akuvla"

Suvmmaco"

OiJ 'O (LXX)

qeodotivwn

'E’

S’.

Z’.

bamwntro wxDyq

ousadik bhmounaqw ieie.

kai; di;kaio" ejn pistei aujtou' zhvsetai.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstew" mou' zhvsetai.

oJ de; divkaio" th;/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

(290; original 1472): ta; tetrapla', ortetraplou'n orto; tetrasevlidon, or, Tetrapla, Tetraplum.

(291; original 1474): Shmeiwvsei", scovlia, scholia.

(292; original 1475): Tovmoi, volumina, also commentarii.

(293; original 1476): JOmilivai.

(294; original 1477): Comp. § 32, p. 89 sqq. A special ed. by W. Selwyn: Origenis Contra Celsum libri I-IV. Lond. 1877. English version by Crombie, 1868. The work of Celsus restored from Origen by Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich 1873.

(295; original 1478): Peri; ajrcw'n. The version of Rufinus with some fragments of a more exact rival version in Delarue I. 42-195. A special ed. by Redepenning, Origenes de Princip., Lips. 1836. Comp. also K. F. Schnitzer, Orig. über die Grundlehren des Christenthums, ein Wiederherstellungsversuch, Stuttgart 1836. Rufinus himself confesses that he altered or omitted several pages, pretending that it had been more corrupted by heretics than any other work of Origen. Tillemont well remarks that Rufinus might have spared himself the trouble of alteration, as we care much less about his views than those of the original.

(296; original 1479): Peri; eujch'" De Oratione. Delarue, I. 195-272. Separate ed. Oxf. 1635, with a Latin version. Origen omits (as do Tertullian and Cyprian) the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, not finding it in his MSS. This is one of the strongest negative proofs of its being a later interpolation from liturgical usage.

(297; original 1480): Eij" martuvpion protreptikov" lovgo" orPeri; marturivou, De Martyrio. First published by Wetstein, Basel, 1574; in Delarue, I. 273-310, with Latin version and notes.

(298; original 1481): First published in Latin by Genebrardus, Paris 1574, and in Greek and Latin by Delarue, who, however, omits those extracts, which are elsewhere given in their appropriate places.

(299; original 1482): The }Ekqesi" th'" pivstew" kata; ajpokavluyin is rejected as spurious by Gieseler and Baur, defended by Hahn, Caspari, and Ryssel. It is given in Mansi, Conc. I, 1030, in Hahn, Bibl. der Symbole der alten Kirche, second ed. p. 183, and by Caspari, p. 10-17, in Greek and in two Latin versions with notes.

(300; original 1483): The kata; mevro" pivsti"(i.e. the faith set forth piece for piece, or in detail, not in part only) was first published in the Greek original by Angelo Mai, Scriptorum Vet. Nova Collectio, VII. 170-176. A Syriac translation in the Analecta Syriaca, ed. by P. de Lagarde, pp. 31-42. See Caspari, l.c. pp. 65-116, who conclusively proves the Apollinarian origin of the document. A third trinitarian confession from Gregory, diavlexi" pro;" Aijlianovn, is lost.

(301; original 1484): Best separate edition by Bengel, Stuttgart, 1722. It is also published in the 4th vol. of Delarue’s ed . of Origen, and in Migne, Patr. Gr. X. Col. 1049-1104. English version in Ante-Nic. Lib., XX., 36-80.

(302; original 1485): In Migne, Tom. X. Col. 987-1018.

(303; original 1486): First by Eusebius in the Proœem. to Bk. VII: oJ mevgas jAlexandrevwn ejpivskopo" Dionuvsio". Athanasius (De Seut. Dion. 6) calls him " teacher of the Catholic church "(th'" kaqol. ejkklhsiva" didavskalo").

(304; original 1487): When invited in 265 to attend the Synod of Antioch, he declined on account of the infirmities of old age. Eus. VII. 27.

(305; original 1488): Preserved by Eusebius VII. 22.

(306; original 1489): In Euseb. VII. 25. Dionysius concludes the comparison with praising the pure Greek of the Gospel and contrasting with it "the barbarous idioms and solecisms" of the Apocalypse; yet the style of the Gospel is thoroughly Hebrew in the inspiring soul and mode of construction. He admits however, that the author of the Apocalypse "saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy," and disclaims the intention of depreciating the book only he cannot conceive that it is the product of the same pen as the fourth Gospel. He anticipated the theory of the Schleiermacher school of critics who defend the Johannean origin of the Gospel and surrender the Apocalypse; while the Tübingen critics and Renan reverse the case. See on this subject vol. I. 716 sq.

(307; original 1490): Suidas calls him Sextus Africanus. Eusebius calls him simply jAfrikanov".

(308; original 1491): Not the Emmaus known from Luke 24:16, which was only sixty stadia from Jerusalem, but another Emmaus, 176 stadia (22 Roman miles) from Jerusalem.

(309; original 1492): Two Syrian writers, Barsalibi and Ebedjesu, from the end of the twelfth century, call him bishop of Edessa; but earlier writers know nothing of this title, and Origen addresses him as "brother."

(310; original 1493): Der Brief des Jul. Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt. Halle 1877.

(311; original 1494): Hist. Eccl. VI. 15, 26, 35; Chron. ad arm. Abr. 2250, 2265.

(312; original 1495): In Routh, Reliquiae Sacre III. 407-422. Cave puts Theognostus after Pierius, about a.d. 228, but Routh corrects him, (p. 408).

(313; original 1496): Euseb. VII. 32 towards the close; Hieron. D, Vir. ill. 76; Praef. in Hos. Photius, Cod. 118, 119. Eusebius knew Pierius personally, and says that he was greatly celebrated for his voluntary poverty, his philosophical knowledge, and his skill in expounding the Scriptures in public assemblies. Jerome calls him "Origenes junior." He mentions a long treatise of his on the prophecies of Hosea. Photius calls him Pamfivlou tou' mavrturo" uJfhghthv"See Routh, Rel. S. III. 425-431.

(314; original 1497): "Jerome says (De Vir. ill. 75): Pamphilus ... tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descrpserit, quae usque hodie in Caesriensi bibliotheca habentur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas viginti quinque ejxhghvsewnOrigenis volumina manu ejus exarata reperi, quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Craesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est, unam epistolam habere martyris, quanto magis tot millia versuum quae mihi videtur sui sanguinis signasse vestigiis."

(315; original 1498): See Routh’s Rel. S. vol. III. 491-512, and vol. IV. 339-392; also in Delarue’s Opera Orig. vol. IV., and in the editions of Lommatsch and Migne. Eusebius wrote a separate work on the life and martyrdom of his friend and the school which he founded, but it is lost. See H. E. VII. 32; comp. VI. 32; VIII. 13, and especially De Mart. Pal. c. 11, where he gives an account of his martyrdom and the twelve who suffered with him. The Acta Passionis Pamph. in the Act SS. Bolland. Junii I. 64.

(316; original 1499): H. E. VIII. 13; IX. 6. The fragments in Routh, IV. 23-82. Peter taught in a sermon on the soul, that soul and body were created together on the same day, and that the theory of pre-existence is derived from "the Hellenic philosophy, and is foreign to those who would lead a godly life in Christ" (Routh, p. 49 sq.).

(317; original 1500): 0ur information about Hierax is almost wholly derived from Epiphanius, Haer. 67, who says that he lived during the Diocletian persecution. Eusebius knows nothing about him; for the Egyptian bishop Hierax whom he mentions in two places (VII. 21 and 30), was a contemporary of Dionysius of Alexandria, to whom he wrote a paschal letter about 262.

(318; original 1501): Jerome makes him bishop of Tyre ("Meth. Olympi Lyciae et postea Tyri episcopus"); but as all other authorities mention Patara as his second diocese, "Tyre" is probably the error of a transcriber for "Patara," or for "Myra, " which lies nearly midway between Olympus and Patara, and probably belonged to the one or the other diocese before it became an independent see. It is not likely that Tyre in Phoenicia should have called a bishop from so great a distance. Jerome locates the martyrdom of Methodius at "Chalcis in Greece" (in Eubœa). But Sophronius, the Greek translator, substitutes "in the East for " in Greece."Perhaps (as Salmon suggests, p. 909) Jerome confounded Methodius of Patara with a Methodius whose name tradition has preserved as a martyr, it Chalcis in the Decian persecution. This confusion is all the more probable as he did not know the time of the martyrdom, and says that some assign it to the Diocletian persecution ("ad extremum novissimae persecutionis") others to the persecution " sub Decio et Valeriano."

(319; original 1502): Sumpovsion tw'n devka parqevnwn, Symposium, or Convivium Decem Virginum.

(320; original 1503): aJgneuvw soi, kai; lampavda" faesfovrou" kratou'sa, Numfive, uJpantavsw soi.

(321; original 1504): Peri; tw'n genhtw'n, known to us only from extracts in Photius, Cod. 235. Salmon identifies this book with the Xeno mentioned by Socrates, H. E. VI. 13, as an attack upon Origen.

(322; original 1505): Peri; aujtexousivou, De libero arbitrio. Freedom of the will is strongly emphasized by Justin Martyr, Origen, and all the Greek fathers.

(323; original 1506): Prœp. Evang. VII. 22; Comp. H. E. V. 27; and Routh, Rel. S. II. 87. Möller and Salmon suppose that Methodius borrowed from Maximus, and merely furnished the rhetorical introduction.

(324; original 1507): See Baron. Annal. ad Ann. 311; De Broglie, L’église et l’empire, I. 375 Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, 414.

(325; original 1508): Hefele, Conciliengesch., vol. I., p. 258 sq. (2nd ed.), assumes to the same effect that Lucian first sympathized with his countryman, Paul of Samosta, in his humanitarian Christology, and hence was excommunicated for a while, but afterwards renounced this heresy, was restored, and acquired great fame by his improvement of the text of the Septuagint and by his martyrdom.

(326; original 1509): This Synod is recognized as legitimate and orthodox, and its twenty-five canons are accepted, although it confirmed the previous deposition of Athanasius for violating a canon. See a full acccount in Hefele, l.c. 1. 502-530.

(327; original 1510): to;n monogenh' qeovn. Comp. the Vatican and Sinaitic reading of John 1:18, monogenh;" qeov" (without the article), instead of oJ monogenh;" uiJov" . The phrase, monogenh;" Qeov"was widely used in the Nicene age, not only by the orthodox, but also by Arian writers in the sense of one who is both qeo;" (divine) and monogenhv". See Hort’s Two Dissertations on this subject, Cambr., 1876. In the usual punctuation of Lucian’s creed, to;n monogenh'is connected with the preceding to;n uiJo;n aujtou', and separated from qeo;n, so as to read "his Son the only begotten, God, " etc.

(328; original 1511): prwtovtokon (notprwtovktiston, first-created) pavsh" ktivsew", from Col. 1:17.

(329; original 1512): See the creed in full in Athanasius, Ep. de Synodis Arimini et Seleucidae celebratis, § 23 (Opera ed. Montf. I. ii. 735); Mansi, Conc. II. 1339-’42; Schaff,Creeds of Christendom, II. 25-28; and Hahn, Bibl. der Symb., ed. II., p. 1847-’87. Hefele, l. c., gives a German version. It is not given as a creed of Lucian by Athanasius or Socrates (H. E. II. 10), or Hilarius (in his Latin version, De Syn. sive de Fide Orient., § 29); but Sozomenus reports (H. E. III. 5) that the bishops of the Synod of Antioch ascribed it to him, and also that a Semi-Arian synod in Caria, 367, adopted it under his name (VI. 12). It is regarded as genuine by Cave, Bssnage, Bull, Hahn, Dorner, but questioned either in whole or in part by Routh (I. 16), Hefele, Keim, Harnack, and Caspari; but the last two acknowledge an authentic basis of Lucian which was enlarged by the Antiochian synod. The concluding anathema is no doubt a later addition.

(330; original 1513): On his labors in regard to the Sept., see Simeon Metaphrastes and Suidas, quoted in Routh IV. 3 sq.; Field’s ed. of the Hexapla of Origen; Nestle in the "Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch., " 1878, 465-508; and the prospectus to the proposed ed. of the Sept. by P. de Lagarde.

(331; original 1514): Dr. Hort, Introd. and Append. to Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test. (Lond. and N. York, 1881), p. 138, says of Lucian: "Of known names his has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision; and the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome . Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos adscrit perversa contentio, " etc. Dr. Scrivener, who denies such a Syrian recension as an ignis fatuus, barely alludes to Lucian in his Introduction to the Criticism of the N. Test., 3rd ed., Cambr., 1883, pp. 515, 517.

(332; original 1515): Euseb. H. E. VII. 32 (in the beginning) speaks of Dwrovqeo" as having known him personally. He calls him " a learned man (Lovgion a[ndra) who was honored with the rank of presbyter of Antioch" at the time of bishop Cyrillus, and " a man of fine taste in sacred literature, much devoted to the study of the Hebrew languages so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with great facility."He adds that he " was of a very liberal mind and not unacquainted with the preparatory studies pursued among the Greeks, but in other respects a eunuch by nature, having been such from his birth."

(333; original 1516): H. E. II. 2. He adds that Tertullian was "particularly distinguished among the eminent men of Rome," and quotes a passage from his Apology, which is also translated into the Greek."

(334; original 1517): De Resurr. Carn. c. 59, he confesses: "Ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse, neque nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti." Comp. also Apolog., c. 18 and 25; De Anima, c. 2; De Paenit., c. 4 and 12; Ad Scapul., c. 5.

(335; original 1518): This fact, however, rests only on the authority of Jerome, and does not appear from Tertullian’s own writings. Roman Catholic historians, with their dislike to married priests, have made him a layman on the insufficient ground of the passage: "Nonne et Laici sacerdotes sumus? "De Exhort. Cast., c. 7.

(336; original 1519): De Cultu Femin., c. 7. Comp. Euseb. II. 2.

(337; original 1520): De Vir. illustr., c. 53: "Hic [Tert.] cum usque ad mediam aetatem presbyter ecclesia epermansisset, invidia et contumeliis clericorum Romanae ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus in multis libris novac prophetiae meminit."

(338; original 1521): Adv. Prax. c. 1.

(339; original 1522): B.C. 264-146,

(340; original 1523): Comp. his own painful confession in De Patient. c. 1: "Miserrimus ego semper aeger caloribus impatientiae."

(341; original 1524): In a similar manner Luther, though himself one of the most original and fruitful thinkers, sometimes unreasonably abuses reason as the devil’s mistress.

(342; original 1525): In this apparent contradiction Luther resembles Tertullian: he fought Romanism with private judgment, and Zwinlianism, Anabaptists, and all sectarians ("Schwarm - und Rottengeister" as he called them) with catholic authority; he denounced "the damned heathen Aristotle," as the father of Popish scholaisticism, and used scholastic distinctions in support of the ubiquity of Christ’s body against Zwingli.

(343; original 1526): According to Niebuhr, a most competent judge of Latin antiquities. Provinces and colonies often retain terms and phrases after they die out in the capital and in the mother country. Renan says with reference to Tertullian (Marc-Aurèle, p. 456) La ’lingua volgata’ d’Afrigue contribua ainsi dans une large part à la formation de la langue ecclésiastique de I’ Occident, et ainsi elle exerça une influence décisive sur nos langues modernes. Mais il résulta de là une autre conséquence; cest que les textes fondamentaux de la littérature latine chétienne furent écrits dans une langue que lettrés d’Italie trouvèrent barbare et corrompue, ce qui plus tard donna occasion de la part des rhéteurs à des objections et à des épigrammes sans fin."Comp. the works of Rönsch, Vercellone, Kaulen, Ranke, and Ziegler on the Itala and Vulgata.

(344; original 1527): Ruhnken calls Tertullian "Latinitatis pessimum auctorem" and Bishop Kaye the harshest and most obscure of writers," but Niebuhr, (Lectures on Ancient History, vol. II. p. 54), Oehler (Op. III. 720), and Holmes (the translator of Tert. against Marcion, p. ix.) judge more favorably of his style, which is mostly " the terse and vigorous expression of terse and vigorous thought."Renan (Marc Aurèle, p. 456) calls Tertullian the strangest literary phenomenon "un mélange inouï de talent, de fausseté d’esprit, d’éloquence et de mauvais goût grand écrivain, si l’on admet que sacrifier toute grammaire et toute correction à l’ effet sois bien écrire."Cardinal Newman calls him " the most powerful writer of the early centuries "(Tracts, Theol. and Eccles., p. 219).

(345; original 1528): On the chronological order see Notes.

(346; original 1529): Comp. H. A. Woodham: Tert. Liber Apologeticus with English Notes and an Introduction to the Study of Patristical and Ecclesiastical Latinity, Cambridge, 1850. Am. ed. of Select Works of Tert., by F. A. March, New York, 1876. p. 26-46.

(347; original 1530): Ebert, who was the first to assert the priority of Octavius, nevertheless admits (Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I. 32) "Tertullian ist einer der genialsten, originallsten und fruchtbarstem unter den christlich-lateinischen Autoren."

(348; original 1531): Praescriptio, in legal terminology, means an exception made before the merits of a case are discussed, showing in limine that the plaintiff ought not to be heard. This book has been most admired by R. Catholics as a masterly vindication of the catholic rule of faith against heretical assailants; but its force is weakened by Tertullian’s Montanism.

(349; original 1532): English translation by Peter Holmes, in the "Ante-Nicene Libr., " vol. VII., 1868 (478 pages).

(350; original 1533): Jerome puts him after Tertullian (and Cyprian), Lactantius beforeTertullian.

(351; original 1534): We may, also refer to more recent analogies: the ablest champions of Romanism-as Hurter, Newman, Manning, Brown, owe their intellectual and moral equipment to Protestantism; while the Old Catholic leaders of the opposition to Vatican Romanism—as Döllinger, Friedrich, Reinkens, Reusch, Langen, von Schulte—were formerly eminent teachers in the Roman church.

(352; original 1535): Jerome decribes him as "in signis causidicis Romani fori," but he depended on Lactantius, who may have derived this simply from the introduction to the book, where the author speaks of taking advantage of the court holidays for an excursion to Ostia. The gens Minucia was famous in Rome, and an inscription (Gruter, p. 918) mentions one with the cognomen Felix

(353; original 1536): From Cirta (now Constantine). This we must infer from the fact that he call Corn. Fronto "Cirtensis noster, " Octav. c. 9; comp. c. 31, "tuus Fronto."

(354; original 1537): In 40 (al. 41) short chapters which, in Halm’s edition, cover 54 pages, oct. The book was written several years after the Dialogue and after the death of Octavius (c. 1: "discedens or decedens vir eximius et sanctus immensum sui deside rium nobis reliquit, " etc.).

(355; original 1538): "Post haec laeti hilaresque discessimus, Caecilius quod crediderit, Octavius gaudere [ad gaudendum] quod vicerit, ego [Minuc. Fel.] et quod hic crediderit et hie vicerit."

(356; original 1539): The only traces are in chs. 29 and 34, which perhaps allude to Jer. 17:5 and I Cor. 15:36, 42.

(357; original 1540): Keim supposes that he intended to refute Celsus (but he is nowhere mentioned); De Félice, that he aimed at Fronto (who is twice mentioned); Kühn better: public opinion, the ignorant prejudice of the higher classes against Christianity.

(358; original 1541): C. 40: "Etiam nunc tamen aliqua consubsidunt non obstrepentia veritati, sed perfectae institutioni necessaria, de quibus crastino, quod iam sol occasu declivis est, ut de toto (oret die toto)congruentius, promptius requiremus."

(359; original 1542): Renan (p. 402) takes a different view, namely that Minucius was a liberal Christian of the Deistic stamp, a man of the world "qui n’empêche ni la gaieté, ni le talent, ni le goût aimable de la vie, ni la recherche, de l’élégance du style. Que nous sommes loin de l’ébionite ou méme du juif de Galilée! Octavius, c’est Cicéron, ou mieux Fronton, devenu chrétien. En réalité, c’est par la culture intellectuelle qu’il arrive au déisme. Il aime la nature, il se plaît a la conversation des gens biens élevés. Des hommes faits sur ce modèle n’auraient créé ni l’Évangile ni l’Apocalypse; mais, réciproquement, sans de tels adhérents, l’Évangile, l’Apocalypse, les épItres de Paul fussent restés les éscrits secrets d’une secte ferméé, qui, comme les esséens ou les théapeutes, eut finlement disparu." Kühn, also, represents Minucius as a philosopher rather than a Christian, and seems to explain his silence on the specific doctrines of Christianity from ignorance. But no educated Christian could be ignorant of Christ and His work, nor of the prophets and apostles who were regularly read in public worship.

(360; original 1543): On the philosophy of Minucius, see the analysis of Kühn, p. 21 sqq.; 58 sqq.

(361; original 1544): Blondel (1641), Daillé (1660), Rösler (1777), Russwurm (1824), doubted the priority of Tertullian. See Kühn, l.c., p. v.

(362; original 1545): In his essay on the subject (1866), Ebert put Octavius between 160 and the close of the second century; in his more recent work on the History of Christ. Lat. Lit. (1874), vol. I., p. 25, be assigns it more definitely to between 179 and 185 (" Anfang oder Mitte der achtziger Jahre des 2. Jahrh."). He assumes that Minucius used Athenagoras who wrote 177.

(363; original 1546): Ueberweg (1866), Rönsch (Das n. T. Tertull. 1871), Keim (1873), Caspari (1875, III. 411), Herzog (1876), Hauck (1877), Bonwetsch (1878), Mangold (in Herzog² 1882), Kühn (1882), Renan (1882), Schwenke (1883). The last (pp. 292 and 294) puts the oral dialogue even so far back as Hadrian (before 137), and the composition before the death of Antoninus Pius (160).

(364; original 1547): Hartel (1869), Jeep (1869), Klussmann (1878), Schultze (1881), and Salmon (1883). Hartel, while denying that Tertullian borrowed from Minucius, leaves the way open for an independent use of an older book by both. Schultze puts Minucius down to the reign of Domitian (300-303), which is much too late.

(365; original 1548): Renan (p. 390) calls Minucius (although he puts him before Tertullian) a habitual plagiarist who often copies from Cicero without acknowledgment. Dombart (p. 135 sqq.), and Schwenke (p. 273 sqq.) prove his dependence on Seneca.

(366; original 1549): The crucial test of relative priority applied by Ebert is the relation of the two books to Cicero. Minucius wrote with Cicero open before him; Tertullian shows no fresh reading of Cicero; consequently if the parallel passages contain traces of Cicero, Tertullian must have borrowed them from Minucius. But these traces in Tertullian are very few, and the inference is disputable. The application of this test has led Hartel and Salmon (in Smith and Wace, III. 92) to the opposite conclusion. And Schultze proves 1) that Minucius used other works of Tertullian besides the Apologeticus, and 2) that Minucius, in copying from Cicero, makes the same kind of verbal changes in copying from Tertullian.

(367; original 1550): Chs. 29, 33, 37. I can find in these passages no proof of any particular violent persecution. Tortures are spoken of in ch. 37, but to these the Christians were always exposed. Upon the whole the situation of the church appears in the introductory chapters, and throughout the Dialogue, is a comparatively quiet one, such as we know it to have been at intervals between the imperial persecutions. This is also the impression of Schultze and Schwenke. Minucius is silent about the argument so current under Marcus Aurelius, that the Christians are responsible for all the public calamities.

(368; original 1551): Mommsen, Corp. Lat. Inscript. VIII. 6996 and 7094-7098; Recueil de Constantine, 1869, p. 695. See an article by Dessau in "Hermes, " 1880, t. xv., p. 471-74; Salmon, l.c., p. 924; and Renan, l.c., p.’090 sq. Renan admits the possible identity of this Caecilius with the friend of Minucius, but suggests in the interest of his hypothesis that he was the son.

(369; original 1552): V. Schultze denies Cyprian’s authorship; but the book is attester by Jerome and Augustin.

(370; original 1553): Catal. c. 67: "Cyprianus Afer primum gloriose rhetoricam docuit."

(371; original 1554): Pontius, in his Vita, a very unsatisfactory sketch, prefixed to the editions of the works of Cyprian, places this act of renunciation (MaTt. 19:21) before his baptism."inter fidei prima rudimenta." Cyprian’s gardens, however, together with a villa, were afterwards restored to him, "Dei indulgentia," that is, very probably, through the liberality of his Christian friends.

(372; original 1555): De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum, c. 3, 4.

(373; original 1556): "Undae genitalis auxilio," which refers of course to baptism.

(374; original 1557): "Da magistrum!" So Jerome relates in his notice on Tertullian, Cat. c. 53, on the testimony of an old man, who had heard it in his youth from the "notarius beati Cypriani." As to the time, Cyprian might have personally known Tertullian, who lived at least till the year 220 or 230.

(375; original 1558): The order of them varies in different editions occasioning frequent confusion in citation.

(376; original 1559): Novatiani, in the East also Kaqaroiv, which is equivalent to Puritans.

(377; original 1560): Jerome calls him and Tertullian eloquentissimi viri (Ad Dam. Ep. 36). Eusebius speaks unfavorably of him on account of bis severe discipline, which seemed to deny mercy to poor sinners.

(378; original 1561): On the subject of the official language of the Roman Church, see especially the learned and conclusive investigations of Caspari,l.c. III. 430 sqq., and the inscriptions in De Rossi, Rom. sotter. I. 277 sqq., 293, and II. 76 sqq. Also Harnack: D. Pseudo-Cyprian. Tractat D Aleatoribus, 1888. Cornelius was not buried officially by the Roman Church, but by private members of the same.

(379; original 1562): See the letter of Cornelius to Fabius, preserved by Euseb. VI. 33.

(380; original 1563): Ep. XXX. of Cyprian (Oxf. and Hartel’s edd.). English version in "Ante-Nic. Libr., " Cyprian’s works, I. 85-92. That this letter was written by Novatian, appears from Cyprian’s Ep. LV. (ad Antonianum) cap. 4, where Cyprian quotes a passage from the same, and then adds "Additum est etiam Novatiano tunc scribente," etc.

(381; original 1564): Ch. 2. Comp. also ch. 3, where he says: "Far be it from the Roman Church to slacken her vigor with so profane a facility, and to loosen the nerves of her severity by overthrowing the majesty of faith; so that when the wrecks of your ruined brethren are not only lying, but are falling around, remedies of a too hasty kind, and certainly not likely to avail, should be afforded for Communion; and by a false mercy, new wounds should be impressed on the old wounds of their transgression; so that even repentance should be snatched from there wretched beings, to their greater overthrow." And in ch. 7: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father and before his angels. For God, as He is merciful, so He exacts obedience to his precepts, and indeed carefully exacts it; and as be invites to the banquet, so the man that hath not a wedding garment be binds hands and feet, and casts him out beyond the assembly of the saints. He has prepared heaven but he has also prepared hell. He has prepared places of refreshment, but he has also prepared eternal punishment. He has prepared the light that none can approach unto, but he has also prepared the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night." At the close be favors an exception in case of impending death of the penitent lapsed, to whom cautious help should be administered, "that neither ungodly men should praise our smooth facility, nor truly penitent men accuse our severity as cruel." This letter relieves Novatian of the reproach of being chiefly influenced in his schism by personal motives, as Pope Cornelius (Euseb. VI. 43), and Roman historians maintain (also Harnack, in Herzog X. 661).

(382; original 1565): "Ex exigna et vilissima Italiae parte." See Jaffé Regesta Pontif. Rom. p. 7. Cornelius, in his letter to Fabian (Euseb. VI. 43), describes these three bishops as contemptible ignoramuses, who were intoxicated when they ordained Novatian "by a shadowy and empty imposition of hands."

(383; original 1566): De Instantia, probably in persecution, not in prayer. See Caspari, p. 428, note 284 versus Lardner and Lumper, who explain it of Perseverance in prayer: but this was no doubt treated in De Oratione, for which, however, the Vatican Cod. reads De Ordinatione.

(384; original 1567): In the MSS. of the second poem be is called a bishop. Commodian gives no indication of his clerical status, but it may be fairly inferred from his learning. In the last section of his second poem lie calls himself Gazaeus. Ebert understands this geographically, from the city of Gaza in Syria. But in this case he would have written in Greek or in Syriac. The older interpretation is preferable, from Gaza (gavza), treasure, or gazophylacium (gazofulavkion)treasury, which indicates either his possession of the treasure of saving truth or his dependence for support on the treasury of the church.

(385; original 1568): Ebert suggests that he was a Jewish proselyte; but in the introduction to the first poem he says that he formerly worshipped the gods (deos vanos), which he believed to be demons, like most of the patristic writers.

(386; original 1569): The author upbraids the Gentiles for persevering in unbelief after Christianity had existed for 200 years (VI. 2). Ebert dates the Instructions back as far as 239. Alzog puts it down much later.

(387; original 1570): See above p. 854. Note 1

(388; original 1571): The last five lines are (see Migne V. Col. 261, 262):

"ostenduntur illis, et legunt gesta de coelo

memoria prisca debito et merita digno.

merces in perpetuo secundum facta tyranno.

omnia non possum comprehendere parvo libello.

curiositas docti inveniet nomenin isto.

(389; original 1572): Inst. Div. VII. 16 sqq.

(390; original 1573): Adv. Nat. 1, 39, ed. Reifferscheid, p. 26.

(391; original 1574): In book V. 22 he details the crimes of Jupiter who robbed Ceres, Leda, Danae, Europa, Alcmena, Electra, Latona, Laodamia, and "a thousand other virgins and a thousand matrons, and with them the boy Catamitus of their honor and chastity," and who was made a collection of "all impurities of the stage."

(392; original 1575): He says that Christianity had then existed three hundred years (I. 13), and that the city of Rome was one thousand and fifty years old (II. 71). The last date leaves a choice between a.d. 296 or 303, according as we reckon by the Varronian or the Fabian era.

(393; original 1576): IV. 36; comp. I. 26; II. 77; III. 36, etc. Comp. Euseb. H. E. VIII. 2.

(394; original 1577): In the Nation. Libr. of Paris, No. 1661. The copy in Brussels is merely a transcript. The MS., though well written, is very corrupt, and leaves room for many conjectures. Reifferscheid has carefully compared it at Paris in 1867.

(395; original 1578): "Has that well-known word (illud vulgatum) never struck your ears, that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God?" II. 6; comp. 1 Cor. 3:19.

(396; original 1579): The strongest passages for the divinity of Christ are I. 37, 39, 42 and 53. In the last passage he says (Reifferscheid, p. 36): "Deus ille sublimis fuit [Christus], deus radice ab intima, deus ab incognitis regnis et ab omnium principe deo sospitator est missus"

(397; original 1580): "per purae speciem simplicitatis, " I.46. This passage speaks against the story, that Arnobius was converted by a dream.

(398; original 1581): I must differ from Ebert (p 69), who says that Christianity produced no moral change in His heart."In seinem Stil ist Arnobius durchaus Heide, und auch dies ist ein Zeugniss für die Art seines Christenthums, das eben eine innere Umwandlung nicht bewirkt hatte. Das Gemüth hat an seinem Ausdruck nirgends einen Antheil."

(399; original 1582): I. 9.

(400; original 1583): IV. 36.

(401; original 1584): Vict. Petavionensis orPetabionensis; notPictaviensis (from Poictiers), as in the Rom. Martyrologium and Baronius. John Launoy (d. 1678) is said to have first corrected this error.

(402; original 1585): Carmina de Jesu Christo Deo et homine; Lignum Vitae; also the hymns DeCruce or De Paschate, in Tertullian’s and Cyprian’s works. Routh, III. 483, denies the genuineness; so also Lumper in Migne V. 294.

(403; original 1586): Comp. Lüke, Einleitung in die Offen b. Joh, pp. 972-982 (2nd ed.); and Bleek, Vorlesungen über die Apok., p. 34 sq. Lücke and Bleek agree in regarding this commentary as a work of Victorinus, but with later interpolations. Bleek assumes that it was originally more pronounced in its chiliasm.

(404; original 1587): As Cassiodorus remarks: "Difficillima quaedam loca breviter tractavit.’;

(405; original 1588): This explanation of 17:10, 11 rests on the expectation of the return of Nero as Antichrist, and was afterwards justly abandoned by Andreas and Arethas, but has been revived again, though with a different counting of the emperors, by the modern champions of the Nero-hypothesis. See the discussion in vol. I, 864 sqq.

(406; original 1589): T=300; E=5; I=10; T=300: A=l; N=50; in all 666. Dropping the final n, we get Teita=616, which was the other reading in 13:18, mentioned by Irenaeus. Titus was the destroyer of Jerusalem, but in unconconsious fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy; he was no persecutor of the church, and was one of the best among the Roman emperors.

(407; original 1590): D=500; I=1; C=100; L=50; V=5; X=10; in all=666. "Id est quod Graece sonat teitavn id quod Latine dicitur diclux, quo nomine per antiphrasin expresso intelligimus antichrstum, qui cum a luce superna abscissus sit et ea privatus, transfigurat tamen se in angelum lucis audens sese dicere lucem. Item invenimus in quodom codice, Graeco a[ntemo" . " The last name is perhaps a corruption for [Anteimo", which occurs on coins of Moesia for a ruling dynasty, or may be meant for a designation of character: honori contrarius. See Migne, V. 339, and Lücke, p. 978.

(408; original 1591): "Nam regnum Christi nunc est sempiternum in sanctis, cum fuerit gloria post resurrectionem manifestata sanctorum." (Migne V. 344.)

(409; original 1592): Comp. § 188, p. 612 sqq.

(410; original 1593): Eusebius died a.d. 340; Lactantius between 320 and 330; Hosius between 357 and 360.

(411; original 1594): Hosius left no literary work. The only document we have from his pen is his letter to the Arian Emperor Constantius, preserved by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. 44). See Gains, l.c. II. 215 sqq. It begins with this noble sentence: "I was a confessor of the faith long before your grandfather Maximian persecuted the church. If you persecute me, I am ready to suffer all rather than to shed innocent blood and to betray the truth." Unfortunately, in his extreme old age he yielded under the infliction of physical violence, and subscribed an Arian creed, but bitterly repented before his death. Athanasius expressly says (l. c. 45), that "at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he abjured the Arian heresy, and gave strict charge that no one should receive it." It is a disputed point whether he died at Sirmium in 357, or was permitted to return to Spain, and died there about 359 or 360. We are only informed that he was over a hundred years old, and over sixty years a bishop. Athan. l.c.; Sulpicius Severus, Hist. II. 55.

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。

原字串	Best guess	语言	出现位置	说明
Muriobivblion, h{ biblioqhvkh	Μυριοβίβλιον, ἢ βιβλιοθήκη	Greek	正文第 15 段	据书名及旧编码推复，连接词疑为ἢ。
173 ’46	1734–’46	Unknown	正文第 22 段	据该六卷书出版年代推补起年末位，未核实。
18771887	1877–1887	Unknown	正文第 50 段	疑为出版起讫年份间漏连接号。
Xartyria	Martyria	Latin	正文第 74 段	上下文为两位圣徒的殉道记，疑M误作X。
Tou' ejn aJgivoi" patro;" hJmw'n Klhvmento" ejpiskovpou JRwvmh" aij duvo pro;" Karinqivou" evpistolaiv	Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Κλήμεντος ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης αἱ δύο πρὸς Καρινθίους ἐπιστολαί	Greek	正文第 92 段	按旧编码推复；保留原串Καρινθίους拼法。
JEn Kwvnstantinopovlei	Ἐν Κωνσταντινοπόλει	Greek	正文第 92 段	据出版地推复；原串首音节重音疑误。
rxq v	ρξθʹ	Greek	正文第 92 段	上下文明示169，对应ρξθ。
Martuvrrion tou' aJgivou iJeromavrturo" jIgnativou tou' qeofovrou	Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Ἰγνατίου τοῦ θεοφόρου	Greek	正文第 141 段	推复书名；首词重出的ρ疑为排误。
ajrchv	ἀρχή	Greek	正文第 209 段	按旧编码推复。
jJrizh	ῥίζη	Greek	正文第 209 段	按字母保留η词尾；气息符与重音据词形推复。
to;n basileva mou to;n swvsantav me	τὸν βασιλέα μου τὸν σώσαντά με	Greek	正文第 211 段	按旧编码推复。
Poimh;n o{rasi"	Ποιμὴν ὅρασις	Greek	正文第 244 段	按旧编码推复，不改原有词形组合。
filovtekno" wjn	φιλότεκνος ὤν	Greek	正文第 275 段	按编码及分词词形推复。
para; tw'n presbutevrwn	παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων	Greek	正文第 303 段	按旧编码推复。
jIwavnnou me;n avkousth;", Polukavrpou de; eJtai'ro"	Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος	Greek	正文第 308 段	按旧编码推复；补ἀκουστής的气息。
oJ presbuvtero"	ὁ πρεσβύτερος	Greek	正文第 308 段	按旧编码推复。
oJ presbuvtero" jIwavnnh"	ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复。
tiv jAndreva" h] tiv Pevtro" ei\pen	τί Ἀνδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复。
h] tiv Fivlippo" h] tiv qwma'" h] jIavkwbo" h] tiv jIwavnnh"	ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί Ἰωάννης	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复，姓名首字母推作大写。
h] Matqai'o", h] ti" e{tero" tw'n tou' kurivou maqhtw'n, a{ te jAristivwn kai; oJ presbuvtero" jIwavnnh", oiJ tou' kurivou	ἢ Ματθαῖος, ἢ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, οἱ τοῦ κυρίου	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复。
tw'n ajpostovlwn	τῶν ἀποστόλων	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复。
maqhtai;, levgousin	μαθηταὶ, λέγουσιν	Greek	正文第 309 段	按旧编码推复。
duvo ejn jEfevsw/ genevsqai mnhvmata, kai; ejkavteron jIwavnnou ejti nu'n levgesqai	δύο ἐν Ἐφέσῳ γενέσθαι μνήματα, καὶ ἑκάτερον Ἰωάννου ἔτι νῦν λέγεσθαι	Greek	正文第 309 段	按编码推复；ἑκάτερον及ἔτι的符号疑有损坏。
gnw'mai Sevxtou	γνῶμαι Σέξτου	Greek	正文第 342 段	按旧编码推复。
ejn	ἐν	Greek	正文第 441 段	只能推复现存介词，括号内其余缺文不补。
La734	La734	Unknown	正文第 465 段	疑为混入的排版残码，无法提出可靠字形，保留原串。
kathchtika; bibliva	κατηχητικὰ βιβλία	Greek	正文第 465 段	按旧编码推复。
Ermeivou filosovfou Diasurmo;" tw'n e[xw filosovfwn	Ἑρμείου φιλοσόφου Διασυρμὸς τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων	Greek	正文第 483 段	按编码及人名推复，首词气息据同段异形补。
JErmeiva"	Ἑρμείας	Greek	正文第 485 段	按旧编码推复人名。
JErmiva"	Ἑρμίας	Greek	正文第 485 段	按旧编码保留人名异形。
jWrigevnou" filosofuvmena h} kata; pasw'n aiJrevewn e[legco"	Ὠριγένους φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος	Greek	正文第 552 段	据书名推复；φιλοσοφούμενα及αἱρέσεων疑有漏码。
[pro;" tou;" jIouda] ijou"	[πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδα]ίους	Greek	正文第 596 段	推复编码并保留补字界线；多余气息码疑误。
[Peri; parqe ] niva"	[Περὶ παρθε]νίας	Greek	正文第 598 段	推复编码，保留补字括号。
eij" paroimiva"	εἰς παροιμίας	Greek	正文第 600 段	按旧编码推复。
[eij" tou;" y]almouv"	[εἰς τοὺς ψ]αλμούς	Greek	正文第 602 段	推复编码，保留补字界线。
[eij" th;n ej]ggastrivmuqon	[εἰς τὴν ἐ]γγαστρίμυθον	Greek	正文第 604 段	推复编码，保留补字界线。
[ajpologiva] uJpe;r tou' kata; jIwavnnhn	[ἀπολογία] ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην	Greek	正文第 606 段	推复编码，保留补字括号。
eujaggelivou kai; ajpokaluvyew"	εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως	Greek	正文第 608 段	按旧编码推复。
Peri; carismavtwn	Περὶ χαρισμάτων	Greek	正文第 610 段	按旧编码推复。
ajpostolikh; paravdosi"	ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις	Greek	正文第 612 段	按旧编码推复。
Cronikw'n	Χρονικῶν	Greek	正文第 614 段	按旧编码推复。
Bivblo"	Βίβλος	Greek	正文第 614 段	按旧编码推复。
pro;" {Ellhna"	πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	正文第 616 段	按旧编码推复。
kai; pro;" Plavtwna	καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα	Greek	正文第 618 段	按旧编码推复。
h[ kai; peri; tou' panto;"	ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς	Greek	正文第 620 段	按语义将连接词损坏的气息码推作重音。
protreptiko;" pro;" sebhvreinan	προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Σεβήρειναν	Greek	正文第 622 段	按旧编码保留人名拼法。
ajpovde[i]xi" crovnwn tou' pavsca	ἀπόδε[ι]ξις χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα	Greek	正文第 624 段	推复编码并保留补字括号。
kata; [ta]; ejn tw'/ pivnaki	κατὰ [τὰ] ἐν τῷ πίνακι	Greek	正文第 626 段	推复编码，重音移回括号内字母。
wj/daiv [e]ij" pavsa" ta;" grafa;"	ᾠδαί [ε]ἰς πάσας τὰς γραφὰς	Greek	正文第 628 段	推复编码，保留补字界线。
Peri; q[eo]u', kai; sarko;" ajnastavsew"	Περὶ θ[εο]ῦ, καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως	Greek	正文第 630 段	推复编码，保留补字界线。
Peri; tou' ajgaqou', kai; povqen to; kakovn	Περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν	Greek	正文第 632 段	按旧编码推复。
ajrcieravteia	ἀρχιεράτεια	Greek	正文第 637 段	按旧编码保留原词形。
tou' kaloumevnou Povrtou	τοῦ καλουμένου Πόρτου	Greek	正文第 638 段	按旧编码推复。
ejpivskopo" eJqnw'n	ἐπίσκοπος ἐθνῶν	Greek	正文第 638 段	按词形推复，ἐθνῶν粗气码疑误。
didaskalei'on	διδασκαλεῖον	Greek	正文第 640 段	按旧编码推复。
ejqnw'n ejpiskopo"	ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος	Greek	正文第 642 段	推复编码并补ἐπίσκοπος重音。
gnwvsei	γνώσει	Greek	正文第 672 段	按旧编码推复。
[Eklogaiv	Ἐκλογαί	Greek	正文第 720 段	首方括号疑为大写字母气息码。
kata; mevro" pivsti"	κατὰ μέρος πίστις	Greek	正文第 726 段	按旧编码推复。
Bivo" kai; ejgkwvmion rJhvqen eij" to;n a{gion Grhgovrion to;n qaumatourgovn.	Βίος καὶ ἐγκώμιον ῥηθὲν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Γρηγόριον τὸν θαυματουργόν.	Greek	正文第 727 段	按编码推复；ῥηθέν重音据词形调整。
e[kqesi" pivstew" kata; ajpokavluyin	ἔκθεσις πίστεως κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν	Greek	正文第 737 段	按旧编码推复。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	正文第 739 段	按所给片段推复；末尾ς在下一条中。
Eij" Qeo;", Path;r lovgou zw'nto",	Εἷς Θεὸς, Πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος,	Greek	正文第 739 段	据独一上帝句式推复Εἷς。
" uJfestwvsh" kai; dunavmew" kai; carakth'ro" aji>divou, tevleio" teleivou gennhvtwr, Path;r UiJou' monogenou' "	ς ὑφεστώσης καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου, τέλειος τελείου γεννήτωρ, Πατὴρ Υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς	Greek	正文第 739 段	首ς接前条σοφία；按编码推复余文。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	正文第 741 段	按旧编码推复。
Ei\|" Kuvrio", movno" ejk monou, qe;o" ejk qeou', carakth;r kai; eijkw;n th' " qeovthto", lovgo" ejnergov",	Εἷς Κύριος, μόνος ἐκ μόνου, θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός,	Greek	正文第 741 段	推复编码，修复错位重音及断开的ς。
th' " tw'n o{lwn sustavsew" periektikh; kai; duvnami" th' " o{lh" ktivsew" poihtikhv, UiJo;" ajlhqino;" ajlhqinou' Patrov", ajovrato" ajoravtou kai; a[fqarto" ajfqavrtou kai; ajqavnato" ajqanavtou kai; ajiv�dio" aji>divou	τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναμις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, Υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ Πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου	Greek	正文第 741 段	推复编码；损坏字符据并列词形推作ἀΐδιος。
Kai; e{n Pneu'ma {Agion, ejk qeou' th;n u{parxin e[con, kai; di j Uijou' pefhno;" »dhladh; toi' " ajnqrwvpoi"¼, eijkw;n tou' Uijou' teleivou teleiva, zwh;, zwvntwn aijtiva, phgh; aJgiva, aJgiovth", aJgiasmou' corhgov": ejn w\/ fanerou'tai qeo;" oJ Path;r oJ ejpi pavntwn kai; ejn pa'si kai; qeo;" oj Uiov" oJ dia; pavntwn: tria;" teleiva, dovxh/ kai aji>diovthti kai; basileiva/ mh; merizomevnh mhde; ajpallotrioumevnh.	Καὶ ἓν Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, ἐκ θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καὶ δι’ Υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς (δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις), εἰκὼν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τελείου τελεία, ζωή, ζώντων αἰτία, πηγὴ ἁγία, ἁγιότης, ἁγιασμοῦ χορηγός: ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ θεὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντων: τριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη μηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουμένη.	Greek	正文第 743 段	推复旧编码及断裂词尾；乱码括号据插语推复。
Ou[te ou\n ktistovn ti h] dou'lon ejn th'/ triavdi, ou[te ejpeivsakton, wJ" provteron me;n oujc uJpavrcon, u{steron de; ejpeiselqovn: ou[te ou\n ejnevlipev pote UiJo;" Patri;, ou[te UiJw'/ Pneu'ma ajlla; a[trepto" kai; ajnalloivwto" hJ aujth; tria;" ajeiv.	Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον μὲν οὐχ ὑπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν: οὔτε οὖν ἐνέλιπέ ποτε Υἱὸς Πατρὶ, οὔτε Υἱῷ Πνεῦμα ἀλλὰ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί.	Greek	正文第 745 段	按旧编码推复，不改原文句法。
Kestoi;	Κεστοὶ	Greek	正文第 765 段	按旧编码推复。
Meqodivou ejpiskovpou kai; mavrturo" ta; euJriskovmena pavnta	Μεθοδίου ἐπισκόπου καὶ μάρτυρος τὰ εὑρισκόμενα πάντα	Greek	正文第 778 段	按旧编码推复。
ajrcipavrqeno"	ἀρχιπάρθενος	Greek	正文第 784 段	按旧编码推复。
peri; th'" u{lh"	περὶ τῆς ὕλης	Greek	正文第 791 段	按旧编码推复。
ajposunavgwgo" e[meine	ἀποσυνάγωγος ἔμεινε	Greek	正文第 799 段	按旧编码推复。
ve!andis	velandis	Latin	正文第 880 段	书名De Virginibus velandis中l疑误识为感叹号。
genshvriko"	γενσήρικος	Greek	正文第 986 段	按旧编码保留姓名拼法。
metropolivth" Serrw'n	μητροπολίτης Σερρῶν	Greek	脚注 14	按编码及都主教称谓推复，首词疑漏η。
oJ Nevandro"	ὁ Νέανδρος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ Giselevrio"	ὁ Γισελέριος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ {Efelo"	ὁ Ἕφελος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ Dressevlio"	ὁ Δρεσσέλιος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ JIlgemfevldo"	ὁ Ἱλγεμφέλδος	Greek	脚注 14	按编码保留人名原有拼法。
oJ jIakwbsovnio"	ὁ Ἰακωβσόνιος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
Kwnstanvti'no" oJ Tisendovrfio"	Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Τισενδόρφιος	Greek	脚注 14	首名重音码错位，据姓名推复。
oJ qeivrsio"	ὁ Θείρσιος	Greek	脚注 14	按编码推复人名。
oJ Sroivkcio"	ὁ Σροίκχιος	Greek	脚注 14	按编码保留姓名的特殊转写。
oJ Souevglero"	ὁ Σουέγλερος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ Slimavnno"	ὁ Σλιμάννος	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
oJ Rei>qmavu>ro"	ὁ Ρεϊθμάϋρος	Greek	脚注 14	按编码推复，保留两处分音符。
oJ Oujlcovrnio" ejn th'/	ὁ Οὐλχόρνιος ἐν τῇ	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
ejn levx.	ἐν λέξ.	Greek	脚注 14	按编码推复并保留缩写。
v. sel	ʹ. σελ.	Greek	脚注 14	疑为前接卷次Β的数字符及σελίς缩写，未核实。
xz v	ξζʹ	Greek	脚注 14	疑为希腊数字页码67。
uJyhlh; kritikhv	ὑψηλὴ κριτική	Greek	脚注 14	按旧编码推复。
ejpiskofobiva	ἐπισκοφοβία	Greek	脚注 14	按编码保留原有构词。
tou' Panagivou Tavfou	τοῦ Παναγίου Τάφου	Greek	脚注 15	按旧编码推复。
didach; tw'n dwvdeka ajpostovlwn	διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων	Greek	脚注 15	按旧编码推复。
ejn pleivstai" ejkklhsivai"	ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις	Greek	脚注 20	按旧编码推复。
tevrma th'" duvsew"	τέρμα τῆς δύσεως	Greek	脚注 21	按旧编码推复。
hJgouvmenoi	ἡγούμενοι	Greek	脚注 21	按旧编码推复。
ejpistolh; tou' makarivou Pauvlou	ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου	Greek	脚注 22	按旧编码推复。
jWkevano" ajnqrwvpoi" avpevranto" kai; oiJ met j aujto;n kovsmoi tai'" aujtai'" tagai'" tou' despovtou dieuquvnontai	Ὠκεανὸς ἀνθρώποις ἀπέραντος καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς ταγαῖς τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται	Greek	脚注 28	按编码推复，修复ἀπέραντος气息码。
genomevna"	γενομένας	Greek	脚注 32	按编码保留所论异读。
[genom]evna"	[γενομ]ένας	Greek	脚注 32	推复编码并保留补字界线。
ginomevna"	γινομένας	Greek	脚注 32	按编码保留所论异读。
bebaiotavthn kai; ajrcaivan	βεβαιοτάτην καὶ ἀρχαίαν	Greek	脚注 33	按旧编码推复。
prosfevrontai qusivai	προσφέρονται θυσίαι	Greek	脚注 34	按旧编码推复。
prosfevretai	προσφέρεται	Greek	脚注 34	按旧编码推复。
protevra	προτέρα	Greek	脚注 36	按旧编码推复。
qeofovro"	θεοφόρος	Greek	脚注 44	保留原文所论主动义重音。
jIgnavtio" oJ kai; qeofovro"	Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ θεοφόρος	Greek	脚注 44	按旧编码推复。
qeovforo"	θεόφορος	Greek	脚注 44	保留原文特意区分的重音。
jAntioceiva" Eujovdio" me;n uJp j ejmou' Pevtrou, JIgnavtio" de; uJpo; Pauvlou keceirotovnhtai.	Ἀντιοχείας Εὐόδιος μὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου, Ἰγνάτιος δὲ ὑπὸ Παύλου κεχειροτόνηται.	Greek	脚注 45	按旧编码推复。
{O ejsti stratiwtw'n tavgma	Ὅ ἐστι στρατιωτῶν τάγμα	Greek	脚注 47	按旧编码推复。
qhsauro;" a[timo"	θησαυρὸς ἄτιμος	Greek	脚注 48	按旧编码保留原词形。
dekavtw/ ejnnavtw/ e{tei	δεκάτῳ ἐννάτῳ ἔτει	Greek	脚注 50	按编码保留所提校读。
ejnnavtw/	ἐννάτῳ	Greek	脚注 50	按旧编码推复。
ta;" ejpistola;s jIgnativou, ta;" pemfqeivsa" hJmi'n uJp j aujtou' kai; a[lla"... ejpemyamen uJmi'n	τὰς ἐπιστολὰς Ἰγνατίου, τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄλλας... ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν	Greek	脚注 52	按旧编码推复。
Ta;" kakotecniva" feu'ge	Τὰς κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε	Greek	脚注 56	按旧编码推复。
kakotecniva"	κακοτεχνίας	Greek	脚注 56	按旧编码推复。
kakotevcnou"	κακοτέχνους	Greek	脚注 56	保留本生所提校读。
jEpistolav"	Ἐπιστολάς	Greek	脚注 73	按旧编码推复。
proagouvsh"	προαγούσης	Greek	脚注 75	按旧编码推复。
Cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi oujk ejx e[rgwn, ajllav qelhvmati qeou', dia; jIhsou' Cristou'	Χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἀλλά θελήματι θεοῦ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ	Greek	脚注 77	按旧编码保留引文措辞。
peristerav	περιστερά	Greek	脚注 79	按旧编码推复。
ejp j ajristera'	ἐπ’ ἀριστερᾷ	Greek	脚注 79	据上下文残留斜线推复下标ι。
periv; stevrna	περὶ στέρνα	Greek	脚注 79	重复重音码疑误，保留所提词形。
perivptera ai[mato"	περίπτερα αἵματος	Greek	脚注 79	按编码保留所提校读。
peri; stuvraka	περὶ στύρακα	Greek	脚注 79	按旧编码推复。
peri;stuvraka	περὶ στύρακα	Greek	脚注 79	按编码推复并分开介词。
oujc wJ" didavskalo" , ajll j wJ" ei\|" ejx uJmw'n	οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν	Greek	脚注 81	按旧编码推复。
polla;/ qevlwn gravfein, oujc wJ" didavskalo"	πολλὰ θέλων γράφειν, οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος	Greek	脚注 81	πολλά后的斜线疑杂码，不推作下标ι。
JEpistolh; Barnavba	Ἐπιστολὴ Βαρνάβα	Greek	脚注 82	按旧编码推复。
oJ kaino;" novmo" tou' Kurivou hJmw'n jI.C., a[vneu (a[ter)zugou' ajnavgkh" w[n	ὁ καινὸς νόμος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ.Χ., ἄνευ (ἄτερ) ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης ὤν	Greek	脚注 84	推复编码及明显错位符号，保留括注异读。
sunetrivbh aujtw'n hJ diaqhvkh, i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou jIhsou' ejgkatasfragisqh'_ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th''" pivstew" aujtou'.	συνετρίβη αὐτῶν ἡ διαθήκη, ἵνα ἡ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Ἰησοῦ ἐγκατασφραγισθῇ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν ἐν ἐλπίδι τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ.	Greek	脚注 85	按编码推复，异常下划线疑为下标ι残码。
prosevcwmen mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloiv klhtoi;, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men.	προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοί κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.	Greek	脚注 86	按旧编码保留引文措辞。
kaqwv" fhsin	καθώς φησιν	Greek	脚注 86	按旧编码推复。
ejn toi'" novqoi" ... hJ feromevnh Barnavba ejpistolhv	ἐν τοῖς νόθοις ... ἡ φερομένη Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή	Greek	脚注 89	按旧编码推复。
ajntilegovmena	ἀντιλεγόμενα	Greek	脚注 89	按旧编码推复。
uJpe;r pa'san aJmartivan ajnomwtevrou"	ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους	Greek	脚注 92	按旧编码推复。
ajpovstoloi	ἀπόστολοι	Greek	脚注 94	按旧编码推复。
hJmei'"	ἡμεῖς	Greek	脚注 95	按旧编码推复。
JO Poimhvn	Ὁ Ποιμήν	Greek	脚注 98	按旧编码推复。
eijs JRwvmhn	εἰς Ῥώμην	Greek	脚注 100	按旧编码推复。
eij"	εἰς	Greek	脚注 100	按旧编码推复。
ejn	ἐν	Greek	脚注 100	按旧编码推复。
pneu'ma	πνεῦμα	Greek	脚注 101	按旧编码推复。
tov	τό	Greek	脚注 101	按编码保留原重音。
tov a{gion	τό ἅγιον	Greek	脚注 101	按编码保留原重音。
oJ qeo;" tou' qeou' ejstivn	ὁ θεὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν	Greek	脚注 101	按编码直复；虽疑θεός有讹，不径改为υἱός。
katevbhsan ou\n met j aujtw'n eij" to; u{dwr kai; pavlin ajnevbhsan	κατέβησαν οὖν μετ’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πάλιν ἀνέβησαν	Greek	脚注 102	按旧编码推复。
nekroiv	νεκροί	Greek	脚注 102	按旧编码推复。
xw'nte"	ζῶντες	Greek	脚注 102	上下文为活着，首字x疑误作z。
eij" ta;" e[xw povlei"	εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις	Greek	脚注 110	按旧编码推复。
presbuvteroi	πρεσβύτεροι	Greek	脚注 113	按旧编码推复。
ajpovstoloi	ἀπόστολοι	Greek	脚注 113	按旧编码推复。
didavskaloi	διδάσκαλοι	Greek	脚注 113	按旧编码推复。
poimevne" kaiv didavskaloi	ποιμένες καί διδάσκαλοι	Greek	脚注 113	按编码保留原重音。
ejstiv	ἐστί	Greek	脚注 114	按旧编码推复。
ei\pen hJ grafh; hJ levgousa	εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα	Greek	脚注 114	按旧编码推复。
pavnta ejx oujk o\ntwn ejpoivsen	πάντα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν	Greek	脚注 114	按词形推复，原串ἐποίησεν疑漏η。
oJ qeo;" ei\"	ὁ θεὸς εἷς	Greek	脚注 114	按句意补数字εἷς气息。
khvrugma Pevtrou	κήρυγμα Πέτρου	Greek	脚注 114	按旧编码推复。
sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n	σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν	Greek	脚注 120	按旧编码推复。
ajnh;r ta; pavnta o{ti mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eujdhvmwn	ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εὐδήμων	Greek	脚注 120	按编码保留原有εὐδήμων词形。
para; zwvsh" fwnh'" kai; menouvsh"	παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης	Greek	脚注 121	按旧编码推复。
Logivwn kuriskw'n ejxhvghsi"	Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις	Greek	脚注 122	据书名推复，kuriskwn疑a误识为s。
ejxhvghsi"	ἐξήγησις	Greek	脚注 122	按旧编码推复。
lovgia	λόγια	Greek	脚注 122	按旧编码推复。
ejpi; pollai'" aJmartivai"	ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις	Greek	脚注 124	按旧编码推复。
aJmartiva//	ἁμαρτίᾳ	Greek	脚注 124	重复斜线疑为下标ι残码。
moceiva//	μοιχείᾳ	Greek	脚注 124	据约8:3词形推补漏ι及下标ι。
IOUSTINOU TOY filosovfou kai; mavrturos jEpistolh; pro;" Diovgnhton, kai; Lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna"	ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Διόγνητον, καὶ Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 129	按编码推复，保留开头全大写。
kravtisto"	κράτιστος	Greek	脚注 131	按旧编码推复。
jApostovlwn genovmeno" maqhthv"	Ἀποστόλων γενόμενος μαθητής	Greek	脚注 136	按旧编码推复。
trivbwn	τρίβων	Greek	脚注 156	按旧编码推复。
tribwvnion	τριβώνιον	Greek	脚注 156	按旧编码推复。
qilovsofe, Cai're	φιλόσοφε, Χαῖρε	Greek	脚注 157	据称呼及上下文，首q疑误作f。
aujtokravtori	αὐτοκράτορι	Greek	脚注 159	按旧编码推复。
fugw;n to;n nu'n genovmenon povlemon	φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον	Greek	脚注 159	按旧编码推复。
filovsofo"	φιλόσοφος	Greek	脚注 159	按旧编码推复。
lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna"	λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 162	按旧编码推复。
lovgo" parainetiko;" pro;s {Ellhna"	λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 164	按旧编码推复。
ajpomnhmoneuvmata tw'n ajpostovlwn	ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων	Greek	脚注 168	按旧编码推复。
to; eujaggelion	τὸ εὐαγγέλιον	Greek	脚注 168	按词形补原串缺失重音。
a{ kalei'tai eujaggevlia	ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια	Greek	脚注 168	按旧编码推复。
movnh filosofiva ajsfalhv" te kai; suvmforo"	μόνη φιλοσοφία ἀσφαλής τε καὶ σύμφορος	Greek	脚注 172	按旧编码推复。
teleutai'o" novmo" kai; diaqhvkh kuriwtavth pasw'n	τελευταῖος νόμος καὶ διαθήκη κυριωτάτη πασῶν	Greek	脚注 173	按旧编码推复。
a[crhstoi	ἄχρηστοι	Greek	脚注 175	按旧编码推复。
Cristov"	Χριστός	Greek	脚注 175	按旧编码推复。
crhstov"	χρηστός	Greek	脚注 175	按旧编码推复。
Cristianoi; ei\|nai kathgorouvmeqa: to; de; crhsto;n misei'sqai ouj divkaion.	Χριστιανοὶ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα: τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον.	Greek	脚注 175	按旧编码推复。
Cristov"	Χριστός	Greek	脚注 175	按旧编码推复。
Pro;s {Ellhna"	Πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 179	按旧编码推复。
To; dia; tessavrwn	Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων	Greek	脚注 180	按旧编码推复。
Presbeiva	Πρεσβεία	Greek	脚注 182	按旧编码推复。
peri; Cristianw'n	περὶ Χριστιανῶν	Greek	脚注 182	按旧编码推复。
qeofivlou pro;" Aujtovlukon	Θεοφίλου πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον	Greek	脚注 184	按编码推复书名。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 185	按片段推复；末尾ς未包括在本条内。
tuvpoi th'" triavdo" , tou' qeou', kai; tou' lovgou autou' kai; th'"	τύποι τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς	Greek	脚注 185	按旧编码推复。
aujtou'	αὐτοῦ	Greek	脚注 185	按旧编码推复。
aiJ Sarvdei"	αἱ Σάρδεις	Greek	脚注 187	按旧编码推复。
Savrdi"	Σάρδις	Greek	脚注 187	按编码保留地名异形。
eujnouciva	εὐνουχία	Greek	脚注 188	按旧编码推复。
to; ejn parqeneiva/ kai; ejn eujnouciva/ mei'nai/	τὸ ἐν παρθενείᾳ καὶ ἐν εὐνουχίᾳ μεῖναι	Greek	脚注 188	推复编码；不定式末斜线疑杂码。
to; peri; politeiva" kai; profhtw'n	τὸ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
kaiv	καί	Greek	脚注 190	保留作为校勘对象的词。
tw'n	τῶν	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
peri; kuriakh'"	περὶ κυριακῆς	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
peri; fuvsew"	περὶ φύσεως	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
pivstew"	πίστεως	Greek	脚注 190	保留所列异读。
peri; plavsew"	περὶ πλάσεως	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
oJ peri; uJpakoh'" pivstew" aijsqhthrivwn	ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων	Greek	脚注 190	按编码保留原有标题组合。
hJ kleiv"	ἡ κλείς	Greek	脚注 190	按编码保留原重音。
peri; ejnswmavtou qeou'	περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
ejnswmavtwsi"	ἐνσωμάτωσις	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
biblivdion	βιβλίδιον	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
jEklogaiv	Ἐκλογαί	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
ta; peri; tou' diabovlou, kai; th'" ajpokaluvyews jIwavnnou	τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου, καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
peri; sarkwvsew" Cristou'	περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ	Greek	脚注 190	按旧编码推复。
peri; ajlhqeiva"	περὶ ἀληθείας	Greek	脚注 192	按旧编码推复。
kleiv"	κλείς	Greek	脚注 193	按编码保留原重音。
provs {Ellhna" peri; eujsebeiva", peri; ajlhqeiva"	πρὸς Ἕλληνας περὶ εὐσεβείας, περὶ ἀληθείας	Greek	脚注 196	按编码推复，介词错位重音疑误。
kaiv	καί	Greek	脚注 196	按旧编码推复。
JUpomnhvmata	Ὑπομνήματα	Greek	脚注 204	按旧编码推复。
Suggavmmata	Συγγράμματα	Greek	脚注 204	据著作称谓推补疑漏的ρ。
ejnqevou filoponiva"	ἐνθέου φιλοπονίας	Greek	脚注 208	按旧编码推复。
uJmw'n th;n ejpistolhvn	ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν	Greek	脚注 209	按旧编码推复。
scedo;n ejpi; th'" hJmetevra" genea'"	σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς	Greek	脚注 211	按旧编码推复。
pavnu ghralevo"	πάνυ γηραλέος	Greek	脚注 211	按旧编码推复。
prwvth hJlikiva	πρώτη ἡλικία	Greek	脚注 211	按旧编码推复。
prwvth hJlikiva	πρώτη ἡλικία	Greek	脚注 211	按旧编码推复。
aujlh; basilikhv	αὐλὴ βασιλική	Greek	脚注 211	按旧编码推复。
ejn Keltoi'"	ἐν Κελτοῖς	Greek	脚注 215	按旧编码推复。
bavrbaron diavlekton	βάρβαρον διάλεκτον	Greek	脚注 215	按旧编码推复。
aJplw'" kai; ajlhqw'" kai; ijdiwtikw'	ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς	Greek	脚注 215	据完整上下文补末尾ς，气息码疑错位。
spevrmata kai; ajrcav"	σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχάς	Greek	脚注 215	按旧编码推复。
[Elegco" kai; ajnatroph; th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew"	Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως	Greek	脚注 220	首方括号为气息重音码，按书名推复。
pro;" aijrevsei"	πρὸς αἱρέσεις	Greek	脚注 220	按旧编码推复。
Peri; monarciva" h} peri; tou' mh; ei\|nai to;n Qeo;n poihth;n kakw'n	Περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν	Greek	脚注 224	按旧编码推复。
Peri; ojgdoavdo"	Περὶ ὀγδοάδος	Greek	脚注 226	按旧编码推复。
Peri; scivsmato"	Περὶ σχίσματος	Greek	脚注 227	按旧编码推复。
biblivon dialevxewn diafovrwn	βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων	Greek	脚注 229	按旧编码推复。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	脚注 232	按旧编码推复。
ajlhqinhv	ἀληθινή	Greek	脚注 232	按旧编码推复。
peri; th'" ejpisthvmh"	περὶ τῆς ἐπιστήμης	Greek	脚注 232	按旧编码推复。
Peri; tou' pantov"	Περὶ τοῦ παντός	Greek	脚注 243	按旧编码推复。
Pro;s {Ellhna"	Πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 244	按旧编码推复。
kaiv	καί	Greek	脚注 244	按旧编码推复。
peri; tou' pantov"	περὶ τοῦ παντός	Greek	脚注 245	按旧编码推复。
oJ" th;n aJmartivan ejx ajnqrwvpwn ajpopluvnein prosevtaxe	ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προσέταξε	Greek	脚注 248	按编码保留原有难解措辞。
biblidavrion	βιβλιδάριον	Greek	脚注 249	按旧编码推复。
bibliv"	βιβλίς	Greek	脚注 249	按编码保留少见词形。
bivblo"	βίβλος	Greek	脚注 249	按旧编码推复。
biblivdion	βιβλίδιον	Greek	脚注 249	按旧编码推复。
oJmiliva JIppol. eij" ai{resin Nohvtou tino"	ὁμιλία Ἱππολ. εἰς αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινος	Greek	脚注 251	按编码推复，保留姓名缩写。
biblidavrion	βιβλιδάριον	Greek	脚注 251	按旧编码推复。
suvntagma	σύνταγμα	Greek	脚注 251	按旧编码推复。
Peri; th'" tou' panto;" aijtiva"	Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας	Greek	脚注 253	按旧编码推复。
oujsiva"	οὐσίας	Greek	脚注 253	保留所列标题异读。
Peri; tou' pantov"	Περὶ τοῦ παντός	Greek	脚注 253	按旧编码推复。
Smikro;"Labuvrinqo"	Σμικρὸς Λαβύρινθος	Greek	脚注 255	按编码推复并补词间空格。
spouvdasma kata; th's jArtevmwno" aiJrevsew"	σπούδασμα κατὰ τῆς Ἀρτέμωνος αἱρέσεως	Greek	脚注 255	按旧编码推复。
Peri; carismavtwn avpostolikh; paravdosi"	Περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις	Greek	脚注 257	按编码推复，补ἀποστολική气息。
Peri; tou' swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' kai; peri; avnticrivstou	Περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ ἀντιχρίστου	Greek	脚注 258	按编码推复，补ἀντιχρίστου气息。
ajnh;r ejkklhsiastikov"	ἀνὴρ ἐκκλησιαστικός	Greek	脚注 263	按旧编码推复。
logiwvtato"	λογιώτατος	Greek	脚注 263	按旧编码推复。
to; th'" kathchvsew" didaskalei'on	τὸ τῆς κατηχήσεως διδασκαλεῖον	Greek	脚注 268	按旧编码推复。
didaskalei' tw'n iJerw'n lovgwn	διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων	Greek	脚注 268	据同段称谓推补首词缺失ον。
to; iJero;n didaskalei'on tw'n iJerw'n maqhmavtwn	τὸ ἱερὸν διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν μαθημάτων	Greek	脚注 268	按旧编码推复。
sikelikh; mevlitta	Σικελικὴ μέλιττα	Greek	脚注 269	按旧编码推复。
e[an mh; pisteuvshte, oujde; mh; sunh'te	ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε, οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε	Greek	脚注 270	按编码保留所引措辞。
Klhvmhn"	Κλήμης	Greek	脚注 271	人名中ν疑多出，据Clemens推复。
ajpokavqarsi"	ἀποκάθαρσις	Greek	脚注 272	按旧编码推复。
muvhsi"	μύησις	Greek	脚注 272	按旧编码推复。
ejpovteia	ἐποπτεία	Greek	脚注 272	据秘仪术语推补疑漏π，重音随词形复原。
Lovgo" protreptikov" pro;s {Ellhna"	Λόγος προτρεπτικός πρὸς Ἕλληνας	Greek	脚注 273	按旧编码推复。
Paidagwgov"	Παιδαγωγός	Greek	脚注 274	按旧编码推复。
Strwmatei'"	Στρωματεῖς	Greek	脚注 275	按编码保留书名异形。
Tiv" oJ swzovmeno" plouvsio"	Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος	Greek	脚注 276	按旧编码推复。
JUpotupwvsei"	Ὑποτυπώσεις	Greek	脚注 277	按旧编码推复。
u{mno" tou' swth'ro" Cristou'	ὕμνος τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ	Greek	脚注 278	按旧编码推复。
paidagwgov"	παιδαγωγός	Greek	脚注 278	按旧编码推复。
jWrigevnh"	Ὠριγένης	Greek	脚注 279	按旧编码推复。
jAdamavntio"	Ἀδαμάντιος	Greek	脚注 280	按旧编码推复。
Calkevntero"	Χαλκέντερος	Greek	脚注 280	按旧编码推复。
Lewnivdh"	Λεωνίδης	Greek	脚注 282	按编码保留人名异形。
Ta; eJxapla'	Τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ	Greek	脚注 288	按旧编码推复。
to; eJxaplou'n	τὸ ἑξαπλοῦν	Greek	脚注 288	按旧编码推复。
e’	εʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第五本对应希腊数字5。
"’	ϛʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第六本对应数字6，原双引号疑为ϛ损坏。
z’	ζʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第七本对应希腊数字7。
Heptap!a	Heptapla	Latin	脚注 289	七栏本名称中l疑误识为感叹号。
To; Ebraikovn	Τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν	Greek	脚注 289	据栏名推复气息及分音符。
To; JEbraiko;n JEllhnikoi'"gravmmasin	Τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν Ἑλληνικοῖς γράμμασιν	Greek	脚注 289	按编码推复，补分音符及词间空格。
!Akuvla"	Ἀκύλας	Greek	脚注 289	首感叹号疑为大写气息码损坏。
Suvmmaco"	Σύμμαχος	Greek	脚注 289	按旧编码推复。
OiJ 'O	Οἱ Οʹ	Greek	脚注 289	LXX对应七十，Ο为希腊数字70。
qeodotivwn	Θεοδοτίων	Greek	脚注 289	按编码推复译者名。
'E’	Εʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第五译本栏号，前置引号疑杂码。
S’	Ϛʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第六译本栏号，S疑代数字Ϛ。
Z’	Ζʹ	Greek	脚注 289	第七译本栏号。
bamwntro wxDyq	וצדיק באמונתו יחיה	Hebrew	脚注 289	据哈2:4及邻栏音译推复；原串字序与缺字损坏较重。
ousadik bhmounaqw ieie	ουσαδικ βημουναθω ιεϊε	Greek	脚注 289	此栏为希伯来文的希腊字母音译，依现串推复，不改为译文。
kai; di;kaio" ejn pistei aujtou' zhvsetai	καὶ δίκαιος ἐν πίστει αὐτοῦ ζήσεται	Greek	脚注 289	按编码推复，修复错位或遗漏的重音。
oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eautou' pivstei zhvsei	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει	Greek	脚注 289	按编码推复，补代词粗气。
oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstew" mou' zhvsetai	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστεως μοῦ ζήσεται	Greek	脚注 289	按编码直复，保留原串异常词形组合，不据通行本改写。
oJ de; divkaio" th;/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει	Greek	脚注 289	按编码推复，冠词重音码疑误。
oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει	Greek	脚注 289	按旧编码推复。
oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει	Greek	脚注 289	按旧编码推复。
oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει	Greek	脚注 289	按旧编码推复。
ta; tetrapla'	τὰ τετραπλᾶ	Greek	脚注 290	按旧编码推复。
tetraplou'n	τετραπλοῦν	Greek	脚注 290	按旧编码推复。
to; tetrasevlidon	τὸ τετρασέλιδον	Greek	脚注 290	按旧编码推复。
Shmeiwvsei"	Σημειώσεις	Greek	脚注 291	按旧编码推复。
scovlia	σχόλια	Greek	脚注 291	按旧编码推复。
Tovmoi	Τόμοι	Greek	脚注 292	按旧编码推复。
JOmilivai	Ὁμιλίαι	Greek	脚注 293	按旧编码推复。
Peri; ajrcw'n	Περὶ ἀρχῶν	Greek	脚注 295	按旧编码推复。
Peri; eujch'"	Περὶ εὐχῆς	Greek	脚注 296	按旧编码推复。
Eij" martuvpion protreptikov" lovgo"	Εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικὸς λόγος	Greek	脚注 297	据殉道书名，martupion的p疑误作r。
Peri; marturivou	Περὶ μαρτυρίου	Greek	脚注 297	按旧编码推复。
}Ekqesi" th'" pivstew" kata; ajpokavluyin	Ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν	Greek	脚注 299	首括号码疑误，据同名书推复。
kata; mevro" pivsti"	κατὰ μέρος πίστις	Greek	脚注 300	按旧编码推复。
diavlexi" pro;" Aijlianovn	διάλεξις πρὸς Αἰλιανόν	Greek	脚注 300	按旧编码推复。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	脚注 303	按所给片段推复；属格ς在片段外。
oJ mevgas jAlexandrevwn ejpivskopo" Dionuvsio"	ὁ μέγας Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος	Greek	脚注 303	按旧编码推复。
th'" kaqol.	τῆς καθολ.	Greek	脚注 303	推复编码并保留缩写。
didavskalo"	διδάσκαλος	Greek	脚注 303	按旧编码推复。
jAfrikanov"	Ἀφρικανός	Greek	脚注 307	按旧编码推复。
Pamfivlou tou' mavrturo" uJfhghthv"	Παμφίλου τοῦ μάρτυρος ὑφηγητής	Greek	脚注 313	按旧编码推复。
ejxhghvsewn	ἐξηγήσεων	Greek	脚注 314	按旧编码推复。
Sumpovsion tw'n devka parqevnwn	Συμπόσιον τῶν δέκα παρθένων	Greek	脚注 319	按旧编码推复。
aJgneuvw soi, kai; lampavda" faesfovrou" kratou'sa, Numfive, uJpantavsw soi	ἁγνεύω σοι, καὶ λαμπάδας φαεσφόρους κρατοῦσα, Νυμφίε, ὑπαντάσω σοι	Greek	脚注 320	按编码保留诗句词形及φαεσφόρους拼法。
Peri; tw'n genhtw'n	Περὶ τῶν γενητῶν	Greek	脚注 321	按编码保留单ν词形。
Peri; aujtexousivou	Περὶ αὐτεξουσίου	Greek	脚注 322	按旧编码推复。
to;n monogenh' qeovn	τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
monogenh;" qeov"	μονογενὴς θεός	Greek	脚注 327	保留所引经文异读。
oJ monogenh;" uiJov"	ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
monogenh;" Qeov"	μονογενὴς Θεός	Greek	脚注 327	按编码保留大写。
qeo;"	θεὸς	Greek	脚注 327	按编码保留原重音。
monogenhv"	μονογενής	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
to;n monogenh'	τὸν μονογενῆ	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
to;n uiJo;n aujtou'	τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
qeo;n	θεὸν	Greek	脚注 327	按旧编码推复。
prwtovtokon	πρωτότοκον	Greek	脚注 328	按旧编码推复。
prwtovktiston	πρωτόκτιστον	Greek	脚注 328	保留原文对照词。
pavsh" ktivsew"	πάσης κτίσεως	Greek	脚注 328	按旧编码推复。
Dwrovqeo"	Δωρόθεος	Greek	脚注 332	按旧编码推复。
Lovgion a[ndra	Λόγιον ἄνδρα	Greek	脚注 332	按旧编码推复。
Kaqaroiv	Καθαροί	Greek	脚注 376	按旧编码推复。
gavza	γάζα	Greek	脚注 384	按旧编码推复。
gazofulavkion	γαζοφυλάκιον	Greek	脚注 384	按旧编码推复。
teitavn	τειτάν	Greek	脚注 407	按编码保留数值解释所用特殊拼法及重音。
a[ntemo"	ἄντεμος	Greek	脚注 407	保留原文作为疑讹字形讨论的名字。
[Anteimo"	Ἄντειμος	Greek	脚注 407	按编码保留作者建议的异形，不改为通行姓名。

这一通行名称很可能源于德尔图良 (Tertullian)，他称使徒的追随者为 Apostolici（使徒的门徒；《论基督的肉身》[De Carne]，2；《驳异端的抗辩》[Proescr, Haer.]，30）。韦斯科特 (Westcott) 称他们为 sub-apostolic（使徒之后的），唐纳森 (Donaldson) 则称他们为 ep-apostolic（紧承使徒的）。↩︎
唐纳森 (Donaldson，第105页) 说：“这些著作最显著的特征，是贯穿其中的深切而鲜活的虔诚。这种虔诚包含对上帝最热烈的爱、对人最深切的关怀，并表现为健全、蓬勃而刚健的道德生活。”↩︎
如同《新约》的书信一样，使徒教父的著作通常以题署和基督徒的问安开篇，以祝福和颂荣结束。革利免 (Clement)《致哥林多人书》的开头如下（第1章）：“寄居罗马的上帝的教会，致寄居哥林多的上帝的教会，就是照上帝的旨意、借着我们的主耶稣基督蒙召成圣的人：愿恩惠、平安，从全能的上帝借着耶稣基督，多多地加给你们。”（参《哥林多前书》1:2、3；《彼得后书》1:2。）其结尾说（第65章，旧为第59章）：“愿我们主耶稣基督的恩与你们同在，也与各处一切借着他蒙上帝呼召的人同在；愿荣耀、尊贵、权能、威严和永远的统治，借着他归于上帝，从亘古直到永永远远。阿们。”——坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的书信开头说：“坡旅甲和与他同在的众长老，致寄居腓立比的上帝的教会：愿怜悯、平安，从全能的上帝和我们的救主耶稣基督，多多地加给你们”；其结尾说：“愿恩惠与你们众人同在。阿们。”《巴拿巴书信》的开头和结尾都很笼统，省略了作者与读者的姓名。伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 诸书信的题署和问安则较长而繁复，即使在叙利亚文校订本中也是如此。↩︎
关于革利免的书信，参优西比乌 (Eusebius)《教会史》(H. E.) III. 16；IV. 23；直到公元160年狄奥尼修 (Dionysius) 的时代，甚至直到四世纪优西比乌和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的时代，这封信仍在哥林多教会中宣读。爱任纽 (Irenaeus，IV. 3) 引用《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae) 时称之为“scriptura”（经书）；亚历山大的革利免和俄利根 (Origen，《罗马书注释》[Ad Rom. Comment.] X. c. 31) 则将它视为“scriptura valde utilis et divinitus inspirata”（极有益处、出于上帝默示的经书）。↩︎
五世纪的《亚历山大抄本》 (Codex Alexandrinus，A) 在《启示录》之后，收有罗马的革利免 (Clemens Romanus)《致哥林多人书》，以及一篇讲道的残篇；四世纪的《西奈抄本》 (Codex Sinaiticus) 则在末尾收有完整的希腊文《巴拿巴书信》，以及希腊文《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae) 的一部分。↩︎
据说出自惠特利 (Whately) 大主教。↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 以及其他图宾根 (Tübingen) 批评学者，把如此众多的新约著作，甚至《约翰福音》，都归入后使徒时期那借来的月光之下，显出他们极为缺乏属灵的辨识力。他们走向了另一个极端，与罗马天主教对教父教训的过高评价——认为其权威与圣经相等——恰好相反。↩︎
参上文第184页及下页，以及我的专题著作，1889年第三次修订版。↩︎
共有六种不同的推测。1）革利免就是保罗所提到的腓立比的革利免。俄利根 (Origen)、优西比乌、哲罗姆持此说。他可能是一个希腊人或罗马人，曾在腓立比工作一段时间，后来又在罗马工作。2）他是提比略 (Tiberius) 皇帝的一位远亲。这是伪克莱门传奇小说的说法；这些作品在历史上混乱不堪，毫无价值。3）他就是执政官弗拉维乌斯·克莱门斯 (Flavius Clemens)，即图密善 (Domitian) 的堂亲；公元95年，图密善以“无神论”之罪，即信奉基督教，将他处死，而他的妻子多米提拉 (Domitilla，在罗马创建了最古老的基督徒墓地) 则被放逐到一个岛上。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 持此说，哈纳克 (Harnack) 也持此说，但较不肯定。然而，我们这里所说的革利免是自然死亡的；倘若他与皇帝有如此密切的亲属关系，这一事实必已广传于教会之中。4）他是弗拉维乌斯·克莱门斯的侄子。这是《涅柔斯与阿基琉斯殉道录》 (Nereus and Achilles) 以及 Cav. 德罗西 (Cav. de Rossi) 的说法。5）他是弗拉维乌斯·克莱门斯的儿子。埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 持此说。但这位执政官的儿子们虽被图密善指定为皇位继承人，在革利免任罗马主教时，却还只是孩童。6）他是属于弗拉维乌斯·克莱门斯家中的一名犹太释奴，或释奴之子。莱特福特 (Lightfoot，第265页) 提出了颇有说服力的论证。自保罗被囚时起，皇帝的家似乎便是罗马教会的中心（《腓立比书》4:22）。奴隶和释奴往往十分聪颖而有教养。黑马 (Hermas，《异象》[Vis.] I. 1) 和教皇卡利斯图斯 (Callistus，Philos. IX. 12) 从前都是奴隶。丰克 (Funk) 的结论是：res non liquet（此事尚无定论）。乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn) 在赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书中的结论也是如此。↩︎
勒南 (Renan，第313页) 认为他是一位罗马犹太人。莱特福特也持此说。但殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 虽然在出身和所受教育上都是外邦人，对《旧约》也同样熟悉。↩︎
§ 52，第166页。布里恩尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 在其《绪论》中详细讨论了这个问题，结论是革利免为罗马第三任主教，也是两封《致哥林多人书》的作者。他认为此人就是《腓立比书》4:3中的革利免。↩︎
怀疑论者勒南 (Renan) 曾在圣叙尔皮斯 (St. Sulpice) 研习罗马天主教神学，他说：“Clément Romain … ne fut pas seulement un personnage réel, ce fut un personnage de premier ordre, un vrai chef d’Église, un évêque, avant que l’épiscopat fût nettement constitué j’ oserais presque dire un pape, si ce mot ne faisait ici un trop fort anachronisme. Son autorité passa pour la plus grande de toutes en Italie, en Grèce, en Macédonie, durant les dix dernières années du I^ersiècle. A la limite de l’ âge apostolique, il fut comme unapôtre, un épigone de la grande génération des disciples de Jésus, une des colonnes de cette Eglise de Rome, qui, depuis la destruction de Jérusalem, devenait de plus en plus le centre du christianisme.”（“罗马的革利免不仅确有其人，而且是一位第一流的人物，一位真正的教会领袖；在主教制度尚未明确确立之前，他已是一位主教；若不是‘教皇’这个词用在这里过于不合时代，我几乎敢称他为一位教皇。在第一世纪的最后十年间，他在意大利、希腊和马其顿的权威被认为高于一切人。在使徒时期的终点，他宛如一位使徒，是耶稣门徒那伟大一代的继承者，也是罗马教会的柱石之一；自耶路撒冷被毁以后，这教会日益成为基督教的中心。”）↩︎
《亚历山大圣经抄本》出于五世纪，由君士坦丁堡的基里尔·卢卡尔 (Cyril Lucar) 于1628年献给国王查理一世 (Charles I)。自1633年以来，《革利免书信》仅据这一份抄本，就已刊行约三十次。该抄本的末尾数章（57–66章）全部或部分缺失，且字迹多已模糊、损坏。提申多夫 (Tischendorf，1867及1873年)、莱特福特 (1869及1877年)、洛朗 (Laurent，1870年) 和格布哈特 (Gebhardt，1875年初版) 都曾仔细重新校勘，并刊出了最好的版本。他们的推定读法，大部分因君士坦丁堡抄本的发现而获得证实。参莱特福特著作附录中的校勘补遗，第396页及后。↩︎
当时任塞雷 (Serrae) 都主教（μητροπολίτης Σερρῶν^*）——马其顿的一处古老主教座（赫拉克利亚 [Heraclea]）——后来任尼科米底亚都主教。这位东方高级教士受到西方天主教和新教学者极为热诚的欢迎，在基督教学术共同体中获得了受尊崇的地位。他的发现具有不可估量的价值。在全部用希腊文写成的绪论和注释中，他显示出对革利免以往各版（莱特福特1869年版除外）和现代德国文献的相当了解。看到熟悉的名字化作希腊文，颇觉有趣，例如尼安德 (Neander，ὁ Νέανδρος^*)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler，ὁ Γισελέριος^*)、赫费勒 (Hefele，ὁ Ἕφελος^*)、德雷塞尔 (Dressel，ὁ Δρεσσέλιος^*)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，ὁ Ἱλγεμφέλδος^*)、雅各布森 (Jacobson，ὁ Ἰακωβσόνιος^*)、提申多夫 (Tischendorf，Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Τισενδόρφιος^*)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch，ὁ Θείρσιος^*)、施勒克 (Schroeckh，ὁ Σροίκχιος^*)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler，ὁ Σουέγλερος^*)、施利曼 (Schliemann，ὁ Σλιμάννος^*)、赖特迈尔 (Reithmayr，ὁ Ρεϊθμάϋρος^*)、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn，ὁ Οὐλχόρνιος ἐν τῇ^* Real Encykl. von Herzog ἐν λέξ.^* Clemens von ROM tom. B ʹ. σελ.^* 721；p. ξζʹ^*) 等。不过，他抱怨某些德国人的“高等”或“高傲的批评”（ὑψηλὴ κριτική^*）和“恐主教症”（ἐπισκοφοβία^*）；他自己的批评则受对传统的敬畏所限制，以致他违背最优秀学者的判断，认定《革利免后书》为真作。↩︎
君士坦丁堡抄本属于圣墓修院（τοῦ Παναγίου Τάφου^*）的图书馆，该院位于君士坦丁堡的希腊人区法纳尔 (Fanar，或 Phanar)；当地居民法纳尔人 (Fanariotes) 最初受雇担任秘书和文书抄写员。这是一部小八开羊皮纸抄本，共120叶，写于公元1056年，行草字体清晰而工整，具重音符、气息符及标点（但无下标ι），此外还收有完整的《革利免后书》、希腊文《巴拿巴书》、十二封《伊格那丢书信》的希腊文长本、《十二使徒教训》（διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων^*），以及金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 的一部著作（《新旧约概要》）。这一文本的价值，主要在于《前书》新增的部分（约占全书十分之一，自第57章末至全书结尾），以及《后书》余下的部分。它提供了将近四百处异文。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 较推重君士坦丁堡抄本，莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、格布哈特 (Gebhardt) 和哈纳克 (Harnack) 则较推重亚历山大抄本。《十二使徒教训》(Didache) 的重要性远为重大，但直到1883年才出版。↩︎
这部未被法国学者注意到的抄本，现藏剑桥 (Cambridge)。它于1170年抄写于埃德萨 (Edessa) 的马尔·萨利巴修院 (Mar Saliba)。除《启示录》外，它收录了《菲洛克塞努斯译本》(Philoxenian version，508年) 经哈克尔修订的版本 (Harclean recension，616年) 的全部新约，又将《革利免两书》置于大公书信与保罗书信之间（而非如《亚历山大抄本》那样置于末尾），仿佛它们与正典书卷具有同等权威。莱特福特主教（《圣革利免》S. Clemens 附录，第238页）说，这一叙利亚文译本认真而忠实，但有趋于意译的倾向；它所依据的主要是亚历山大文本，而非君士坦丁堡文本，不过也有若干独立的异读。↩︎
见§ 50，第157页；§ 66，第226、228页。↩︎
见于第65章末尾（在亚历山大文本中为第59章）。克劳狄乌斯 (Claudius) 和瓦勒里乌斯 (Valerius) 可能是皇室的获释奴隶，与皇室有关系（参《腓立比书》4:22）。有人认为福徒拿都 (Fortunatus) 就是《哥林多前书》16:17所提到的那人，是哥林多司提反家中较年轻的一员。↩︎
作此见证的，有通常称为 Cod. A 的《亚历山大抄本》卷首目录的作者；哥林多的狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius)，见其致罗马的索特尔 (Soter) 的信（优西比乌，IV. 23）；爱任纽 (Irenaeus，《驳异端》Adv. Haer. I. 3，§ 3）；常常引用此书的亚历山大的革利免；俄利根 (Origen，《约翰福音注释》Comm. in Joan. VI. § 36及其他地方）；优西比乌 (Eusebius，《教会史》H. E. III. 16；IV. 23；V. 6）；哲罗姆 (Jerome，《名人传》De Virisillustr. 第15章）。从若干段落的相似之处可以看出，坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 已经使用过此书。所有现代批评家（鲍尔、施韦格勒 [Schwegler]、福尔克马尔 [Volkmar] 和科特里尔 [Cotterill] 除外）都承认它出自革利免之手，文体和教义方面的内证也支持这一点。科特里尔的《佩雷格里努斯·普罗透斯》(Peregrinus Proteus，1879年) 将现存形式的《革利免书信》列入斯特凡努斯 (Stephanus) 的伪作之中；这虽是一件构思巧妙的文坛奇物，却不能构成严肃的论证。勒南说（第319页）：“Peu d’ écrits sontaussi authentiques.”（“很少有著作的真实性如此确凿。”）↩︎
哥林多的狄奥尼修斯（公元170年）首先提到，他的教会在礼拜中使用这封书信。优西比乌（III. 16）根据亲身所知作证说，无论从前还是他自己的时代，许多教会（ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις^*）都宣读此书。参哲罗姆，《名人传》De Vir. ill. 第15章。↩︎
1 第5章。τέρμα τῆς δύσεως^* 必指西班牙，即保罗打算前往的地方，见《罗马书》15:24、28。对于一位在罗马写作的罗马人而言，西班牙或不列颠就是大地的西端。参斯特拉波 (Strabo)，II. 第1、4章；III. 2。ἡγούμενοι^* 指罗马官长；另有人认为，这个词特指67年的御营长官提格利努斯 (Tigellinus) 和宁菲狄乌斯 (Nymphidius)，或指67年尼禄远赴希腊期间掌管罗马的赫利乌斯 (Helium) 和波利克勒图斯 (Polycletus)。↩︎
丰克 (Funk) 在《使徒教父》Patr. Apost. I. 566–570列出了引文及平行段落。由此可见，其中157处出自旧约，包括次经，以及（看来还有）《摩西升天记》；158处出自新约，但后者只有三处是严格意义的引文（第46章引《马太福音》26:24和《路加福音》17:2；第2、61章引《提多书》3:1）。革利免只指名提到一部新约著作，即 ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου^*，显然是指《哥林多前书》1:10及下文。另参布里恩尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 版（第159–165页）及格布哈特与哈纳克版（G. and H.，第144–155页）的经文引文目录。↩︎
莱特福特说（第268页及下页）：“当我们想到，这篇祷文出自逼迫的火炉，是在经历了图密善那样残酷而反复无常的暴君之后发出的，它便显得真正崇高——其所言固然崇高，其所不言更为崇高。罗马教会若始终如此说话，谁还会吝于承认她的首位呢？”罗普斯 (Ropes，同上，l. c, 第343页) 说：“当我们想到，这篇祷文所代求的正是图密善时，它的崇高便具有一种特殊的意义。”↩︎
勒南（第314页）称这封书信为：“un beau morceau neutre, dont les disciples de Pierre et ceux de Paul durent se contenter également. Ilest probale qu’il fut un des agents les plus énergetiques de la grande œuvre qué etait en train de s’ accomplir, je veux dire, de la réconciliation posthume de Pierre et de Paul de la fusior des deux partis, sans l’union desquels l’œuvre du Christ ne pouvait que périr.”（“一篇优美而中立的文字，彼得和保罗的门徒都应当同样感到满意。他很可能是当时正在成就的伟大事业中最有力的推动者之一；我指的是彼得与保罗死后的和解，是两派的融合；没有这两派的联合，基督的事业便只能归于毁灭。”）↩︎
第32章。在坡旅甲的《致腓立比人书》Ad Phil. 第1章中，可以听到保罗教导的回响；他在那里提到“他们信仰的坚固根基，就是从古时传给他们、存留至今，并在我们的主耶稣基督里结出果实的”。↩︎
第49章。↩︎
第46章。参《以弗所书》4:3及下文。↩︎
3 第20章：Ὠκεανὸς ἀνθρώποις ἀπέραντος καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς ταγαῖς τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται^*。莱特福特（第84页）评论这一段说：“革利免可能是在指赫拉克勒斯之柱以外某片已为人知、却难以到达的土地。但更可能的是，他所想到的是远在大洋彼岸西方的某片未知之地，如柏拉图传说中的亚特兰蒂斯 (Atlantis)，或近代发现的真实美洲。”莱特福特接着说，爱任纽（II. 28，2）、亚历山大的革利免（《杂学》Strom. V. 12）和俄利根（《论原理》De Princ. II. 6；《以西结书讲道》In Ezech. VIII. 3）就是这样理解这一段的；但后来，德尔图良（《论外袍》De Pall. 2；《驳赫尔摩根尼》Hermog. 25）、拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius，《神圣教义》Inst. II. 24) 和奥古斯丁（《上帝之城》De Civit. Dei XVI. 9）却谴责这种意见。数百年间，科斯马斯·印迪科普勒斯特斯 (Cosmas Indicopleustes) 关于大地是平面且为平行四边形的观点，在基督教文献中占据了支配地位。↩︎
尤其参君士坦丁堡文本和叙利亚文本的第56、58、59、63章。↩︎
革利免，《致哥林多人书》Ad Cor. 第25章。可将这段叙述与保罗《哥林多前书》第十五章对照。↩︎
德尔图良（《论复活》De Resurrect. 13）、俄利根（《驳塞尔苏斯》C. Cels. IV. 72）、安布罗斯 (Ambrose，《六日创世》Hexaëm. V. 23，79)、埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)、鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus)，以及其他教父作家，都采用了这个故事。在早期基督徒中，不死鸟 (Phoenix) 是人们喜爱的更新与复活的象征，甚至是基督本人的象征，常见于钱币、纪念章、戒指、杯子和墓碑上。但在这一点上，他们并不比同时代最聪明的异教徒更迷信。希罗多德 (Herodotus) 从埃及祭司那里听到了幼鸟埋葬亲鸟的神奇故事，见II. 73。奥维德 (Ovid) 和其他拉丁诗人都提及此事，克劳狄安 (Claudian) 还专为此写了一首诗。塔西佗（《编年史》Ann. VI. 28）、普林尼 (Pliny，《自然史》H. Nat. X. 2) 和狄奥·卡西乌斯 (Dion Cassius，LVIII. 27) 记载，公元34年，不死鸟在相隔250年之后，确实又在埃及出现。按照普林尼的记载，这只鸟还奉克劳狄乌斯的命令被带到罗马，于建城纪年800年（公元47年）在公民大会场展出。这当然是一场骗局，但许多人都信以为真，其中很可能包括革利免；他当时或许亲眼见过这只来自埃及的奇鸟。然而，像保罗这样受默示的作者，决不会用这种异教寓言来论证基督教的真理。莱特福特说：“如今已知，这个故事起源于天文学的象征与图像表现。不死鸟的出现，是以某颗显著恒星或某个星座偕日升起为标志的一个周期的重现。”关于整个问题，见亨里克森 (Henrichsen)，《论不死鸟传说》De Phoenicis Fabula（Havn.，1825年）；考珀 (Cowper)、格布哈特与哈纳克、丰克及莱特福特对《革利免书信》第25章的注释；皮珀 (Piper)，《基督教艺术的神话与象征》Mythologie und Symbolik der christl. Kunst（1847年），I. 446及后；以及莱普修斯 (Lepsius)，《埃及人的年代学》Chronologie der Aegypter（1849年），第180页及下页。↩︎
第1章。通常的读法是 γενομένας^*，指过去的灾难。C抄本即如此。亚历山大抄本此处残缺，可能是 [γενομ]ένας^*。莱特福特随叙利亚译本读作 γινομένας^*，即“正在临到我们的”（第267、399页），并认为这一段是指图密善统治下教会持续遭受的危险。↩︎
βεβαιοτάτην καὶ ἀρχαίαν^*，第47章。↩︎
科特利耶 (Cotelier)、蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)、拉德纳 (Lardner)、默勒 (Möhler)、施利曼 (Schliemann)、本生 (Bunsen)、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、利普修斯 (Lipsius)、希尔根费尔德、唐纳森 (Donaldson)、布里恩尼奥斯、哈纳克、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、莱特福特（他把这封信定于弗拉维乌斯·革利免 [Flavius Clement] 在公元95年殉道之后不久）及丰克（他把它定于96年图密善死后），都主张这封书信写于较晚的年代（93–97年）。但其他作者，包括胡果·格劳秀斯 (Hugo Grotius)、格拉贝 (Grabe)、赫费勒 (Hefele)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、B. H. 考珀，都主张它写于较早的年代，并从第41章推断，它必定写于70年以前，当时耶路撒冷圣殿的礼仪仍在举行。革利免说：“弟兄们，每日的祭（προσφέρονται θυσίαι^*）、还愿祭、赎罪祭或赎愆祭，并不是随处都可献上的，只有在耶路撒冷才可献；即使在那里，也不是各处都可献上（προσφέρεται^*），而只能在圣所前的祭坛上献，并且须先由大祭司和前述执事查验将要献上的祭牲。”这一论据颇有说服力，却非决定性的，因为约瑟夫斯于公元93年写到圣殿献祭时，也以类似方式使用历史现在时（praesens historicum），仿佛圣殿仍然存在，见《犹太古史》Ant. III. 10。革利免在第6章说，“嫉妒和争竞倾覆了大城，连根拔起了大国”，似乎是在指耶路撒冷的毁灭。考珀（同上，l.c. 第16页）又提出，书中没有任何对《约翰福音》的暗示，这也是一项论据。然而，书中也没有指名提到对观福音，尽管可以清楚地追溯到全部福音书和几乎全部书信对革利免的影响。↩︎
布里恩尼奥斯刊行了全文，君士坦丁堡，1875年，第113–142页，附希腊文注释；丰克刊本附拉丁文译文（I. 144–171）；莱特福特刊本附英文译文（第380–390页）。↩︎
优西比乌最先提到此书，但同时指出，古代作家并未使用它（《教会史》H. E. III. 38）。爱任纽、亚历山大的革利免及俄利根都只知道革利免的一封书信。哥林多的狄奥尼修斯在致罗马主教索特尔的信中，诚然称它为“前一封”（προτέρα^*），但这是相对于索特尔后来致哥林多人的一封信而言（优西比乌，《教会史》H. E. IV. 23）。发现完整抄本的布里恩尼奥斯，仍坚持这篇讲章出自革利免之手，施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl，第28页) 亦然；但其他现代学者都已放弃此说。沃赫尔 (Wocher，1830年) 将它归于哥林多的狄奥尼修斯；希尔根费尔德起初归于罗马的索特尔，后来（Clem. Ep. 第II版，1876年，第XLIX页）又归于年轻时旅居哥林多的亚历山大的革利免；哈纳克（1877年）归于第三位革利免，此人生活于罗马的革利免与亚历山大的革利免之间的时期，住在罗马；莱特福特（App. 第307页）和丰克（Prol. xxxix）则因其中暗示地峡竞技会（第7章），且与《革利免书信》相联，而将它归于公元140年以前一位姓名不详的哥林多人。参上文第225页。↩︎
莱特福特（第317页）称此书为“崇高的道德热忱与得胜信心”的见证，“这热忱与信心征服了一个原本不肯屈服的世界，使它俯伏在十字架脚前”；但“作为一部文学作品，它几乎毫无价值”。↩︎
最佳版本为贝伦 (Beelen) 所编，附拉丁文译文：《罗马的圣革利免论童贞的两封书信》(S. Clementis R. Epistolae binae, de Virginitate)。鲁汶，1856年。德译本由青格勒 (Zingerle，1827年) 译出，法译本由维尔库尔 (Villecourt，1853年) 译出，英译本收入《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nicene Library)。↩︎
维尔库尔 (Villecourt)、贝伦 (Beelen)、默勒 (Möhler)、尚帕尼 (Champagny)、布吕克 (Brück)。↩︎
曼西 (Mansi)、赫费勒 (Hefele)、阿尔措格 (Alzog)、丰克 (Funk，Prol. XLII及下页)。除发现者韦特施泰因 (Wetstein) 外，所有新教批评学者亦持此说。莱特福特（l. c. 第15页及下页）将此文献定于第三世纪初。优西比乌从未提及它。↩︎
见§ 56，第183页及后。↩︎
见§ 114，第435页及后。↩︎
它们于公元829至847年间起源于法国东部。↩︎
θεοφόρος^*，意为“承载上帝者”。各书信的标题称他为Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ θεοφόρος^*，只是把希腊文名字加在拉丁文名字之后。《伊格那丢殉道记》(Martyrium Ignatii) 第2章记述，他回答图拉真 (Trajan) 的问题时，解释这称号意为“胸中有基督的人”。更晚的传说（见西缅·梅塔弗拉斯特斯 [Symeon Metaphrastes] 及《希腊月课经》[Menaea Graeca]）则改变重音（θεόφορος^*，Theophorus），赋予这名字被动的含义：“被上帝抱着的人”，因为伊格那丢就是基督抱在怀中、放在门徒面前作为谦卑榜样的那个孩子（太18:2）。《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanctorum)，2月1日，I. 28，亦如此说。叙利亚人称他为 Nurono，即“火热者”，借此暗指他源于 Ignis（火）的拉丁文名字。↩︎
《使徒宪章》(Ap. Const.) VII. 46：Ἀντιοχείας Εὐόδιος μὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου, Ἰγνάτιος δὲ ὑπὸ Παύλου κεχειροτόνηται.^*。据优西比乌（《编年史》Chron.，舍内 [Schoene] 编，II，第158页）及哲罗姆，伊格那丢是“Antiochiae secundus episcopus”（安提阿的第二任主教）。参察恩 (Zahn)，Ign v. A.，第56页及后；哈纳克 (Harnack)，《伊格那丢的年代》(Die Zeit des Ign.)，第11页及下页。↩︎
参察恩，第402页；他认为这一传统全无根据，予以否定：“Es fehlt bei Ignatius auch jede leiseste Spur davon, dass er noch aus apostolischem Mund die Predigt gehört habe.”（在伊格那丢那里，丝毫没有他曾亲耳听过使徒讲道的痕迹。）他五次自称是安提阿基督徒中最小的，不配列在他们中间。察恩据此推断，他是在晚年才归信的，如保罗一样，由坚决敌对转为热忱委身（参林前15:8–10）。↩︎
两个希腊文版本都在此加上Ὅ ἐστι στρατιωτῶν τάγμα^*作为解释，优西比乌亦然，见《教会史》H. E. III. 36。↩︎
θησαυρὸς ἄτιμος^*，《殉道记》Mart. 第6章。↩︎
琉善 (Lucian) 在其讽刺作品《佩雷格里努斯之死》(the Death of Peregrinus) 中，把这位犬儒派哲学家描绘成一个伪善的主教和认信者；他在狱中收发消息，成为叙利亚和小亚细亚那些轻信而善良的基督徒关注与通信的中心。这种吻合如此显著，以致察恩与勒南一致推断，琉善知道伊格那丢的故事，并有意借佩雷格里努斯·普罗特乌斯 (Peregrinus Proteus) 这个人物来讥拟他，正如他讥拟坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的殉道一样。见勒南，《福音书》(Les évangiles)，第430页及下页。↩︎
格拉贝 (Grabe) 建议将《殉道记》(Martyr.) 第2章改读为 δεκάτῳ ἐννάτῳ ἔτει^*，而非 ἐννάτῳ^*，如此便得出116年。蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 等人为避开这一困难，毫无充分理由地假定图拉真 (Trajan) 曾两度远征帕提亚 (Parthia)，一次在107年，另一次在115或116年。参弗兰克 (Francke)：《图拉真史论》(Zur Geschichte Trajan’s)，1837年，第253页及后；以及比丁格 (Büdinger)：《罗马帝国史研究》(Untersuchungen zur röm. Kaisergesch.)，I. 第153页及后。尼尔施尔 (Nirschl) 甚至假定图拉真曾三次东征。维泽利 (Wieseley) 和弗兰克 (Frank) 维护传统年代（107年）；哈纳克 (Harnack) 则将殉道时间推迟到哈德良 (Hadrian) 或安敦尼·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 在位时，却没有坚实理由。察恩 (Zahn，第58页) 不作确断，将其置于107至116年之间；莱特福特 (Lightf.) 则置于110至118年之间。↩︎
乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、察恩（第248页及下页）、丰克（XLVII）皆持此说。参莱特福特（II. 390）。↩︎
坡旅甲在致腓立比人的信（第13章）中说，他已把伊格那丢的书信寄给他们（τὰς ἐπιστολὰς Ἰγνατίου, τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄλλας... ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν^*）。察恩和丰克主张，这部 sylloge Polycarpiana（坡旅甲书信集）包含六封书信，不包括《致罗马人书》。（厄舍 [Ussher] 则排除《致坡旅甲书》。）爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 引用《致罗马人书》的一段话，见《驳异端》Adv. Haer. V. 28，§ 4。俄利根 (Origen) 提到伊格那丢的数封书信，并引用《致罗马人书》及《致以弗所人书》各一段，见《雅歌注释序言》Prol. in Cant. Cantic. 及《路加福音讲道》第VI篇 Hom. VI. in Luc.（德拉吕 [Delarue] 版，III. 30、938）。察恩（第513页）还在亚历山大的革利免以及琉善的《佩雷格里努斯之死》(De Morte Peregrini) 中发现伊格那丢的痕迹；后者写于坡旅甲殉道后不久。↩︎
《致罗马人书》Ad Rom.，叙利亚文本第2章；希腊文本第4章。↩︎
第4章（叙利亚文），或第5–7章（希腊文）。↩︎
参腓1:23、24及太26:39。↩︎
Τὰς κακοτεχνίας φεῦγε^*，所有抄本皆如此，甚至叙利亚文抄本也不例外。本生 (Bunsen) 建议将κακοτεχνίας^*改读为κακοτέχνους^*，意为诱惑人的女子、卖弄风情的女人。但这不仅纯属臆测，而且也不能实质减轻这一警告的严厉程度。↩︎
提后2:22。↩︎
尼尔施尔和施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl) 这样的罗马天主教作家，在伊格那丢那里找到了罗马的全部神学和教会制度。圣公会人士因他倡导主教制而钦佩他；然而，他对他们的主张所能证明的，既太少，又太多：说太少，是因为伊格那丢全然不知教区主教制，只知会众主教制；说太多，是因为他要求绝对顺服主教，视之为基督本人的代表，而长老则代表使徒。此外，伊格那丢的主教制还没有祭司观念；这一观念后来随居普良 (Cyprian) 而进入教会，不过罗马的革利免已隐约提及。↩︎
加尔文 (Calvin) 称《伊格那丢书信》为可憎的垃圾（Inst. I. 1，第13章，§ 29）；不过，他所知道的只是那伪造而毫无价值的长订本。W. D. 基伦 (W. D. Killen) 博士本应有更明智的判断，却因强烈反对高级教士制度的情绪，甚至依据较短的叙利亚文订本，也称伊格那丢为“反福音的形式主义者、幼稚的夸口者、神秘主义的梦想家和疯狂的狂热分子”（《古代教会》Ancient Church，1859年，第414页）。尼安德温和得多，却仍不能理解，一位如此接近使徒时期的殉道者，竟没有比“这些关于顺服主教的话”更重要的事可说（《教会史》Ch. H. I. 192，注，波士顿版）。鲍尔和图宾根 (Tübingen) 的批评学者将全部伊格那丢文献视为伪作，予以摒弃。另一方面，罗特 (Rothe) 对这些书信中的殉道热忱颇有好感；察恩（一位正统的路德宗信徒）则认为，较短的希腊文订本中的伊格那丢书信，足以与圣保罗的书信相比较（第400页）。↩︎
更不用说使徒彼得——那位据称是罗马第一任教皇的人——了；相反，他针对教阶制度的倾向提出了庄严的抗议，对一切后世都有效，彼前5:14。↩︎
关于因沃丁顿 (Waddington) 的研究而将年代从166或167年改定为155或156年，见第50页。↩︎
优西比乌，《教会史》H. E. V. 20。↩︎
《驳异端》Adv. Haer. III. 3，§ 4。↩︎
约贰10。↩︎
第7章。↩︎
参约壹4:3。↩︎
参彼前4:17。↩︎
太6:13。↩︎
太26:41。↩︎
《驳异端》Adv. Haer. III. 3，§ 4。参优西比乌，《教会史》H. E. III. 36；哲罗姆，《名人传》De Vir. ill. 第17章。↩︎
达莱乌斯 (Dallaeus)，以及较近的本生、里奇尔 (Ritschl，其《古代大公教会的形成》Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 第2版，第584–600页)、勒南（《学者杂志》Journal des savants，1874年；又见《基督教会》L’église chret.，1879年，第442页及后，但语气已不那么肯定），以及《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion) 的作者（I. 274–278），对其完整性所提出的质疑，也都缺乏充分理由。察恩（1873年）与莱特福特（《当代评论》Contemp. Rev.，1875年2月，第838–852页）则有力地维护了这封书信的真实性与完整性。爱任纽熟悉此信，他的见证（《驳异端》Adv. Haer. III. 3，§ 4）具有决定性。勒南反对它，主要是因为它缺少独创性和力量。↩︎
第2章。↩︎
这里的Ἐπιστολάς^*，很可能必须像拉丁文 literae 一样，理解为一封书信。↩︎
加4:26。↩︎
προαγούσης^*.↩︎
第3章。↩︎
Χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἀλλά θελήματι θεοῦ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ^*，参弗2:8、9。↩︎
丰克（I. 573及下页）只数出6处旧约引文，却有68处对下列新约经文的呼应：《马太福音》（8处）、《马可福音》（1处）、《路加福音》（1处）、《使徒行传》（4处）、《罗马书》《哥林多书》《加拉太书》《以弗所书》《腓立比书》《歌罗西书》《帖撒罗尼迦书》《提摩太前后书》《雅各书》（1处）、《彼得前书》（10处）、《彼得后书》（1处）以及《约翰一、二书》。参有关新约正典的著作。↩︎
因此，针对第16章的περιστερά^*，人们提出了种种校改，例如ἐπ’ ἀριστερᾷ^*，即 a sinistra（从左边）；或περὶ στέρνα^*；或περίπτερα αἵματος^*（scintillarum instar sanguinis，如血的火星）；或περὶ στύρακα^*（circa hastile，在尖桩周围）。参赫费勒：《使徒教父》Patr. Ap.，第288页（第4^版），注4；以及丰克（第5^版），第299页。丰克读作περὶ στύρακα^*，语义通顺。格布哈特 (Gebhardt) 与哈纳克的版本亦然。↩︎
凯姆 (Keim，1873年) 与利普修斯 (Lipsius，1876年) 否定整部《殉道记》。施泰茨 (Steitz，1861年)、察恩（1876年）和丰克（Prol. XCVII）则认为最后两章是后来的增补。唐纳森 (Donaldson，第198页及后) 假定其中有若干插文，使它作为历史文献变得不可靠；但他承认，由于此书较为朴实，且叙述的大部分内容具有可信性，尤其是坡旅甲逃亡和被捕的情形，因此仍优于后来的殉道记。↩︎
οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν^*，第1章；参第4章：πολλὰ θέλων γράφειν, οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος^*。↩︎
《西奈抄本》(Cod. Sinaiticus) 省略“阿们”，并在末尾加上：Ἐπιστολὴ Βαρνάβα^*。↩︎
最后几章或源于《十二使徒遗训》(Didache)，或源于一部更古老的著作《两条道路，或彼得的审判》(Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri)；后者可能是二者的共同来源。见拙著论《十二使徒遗训》，第227页及后、305、309、312页及下页、317页。↩︎
第2章：ὁ καινὸς νόμος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ.Χ., ἄνευ (ἄτερ) ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης ὤν^*↩︎
第4章：συνετρίβη αὐτῶν ἡ διαθήκη, ἵνα ἡ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Ἰησοῦ ἐγκατασφραγισθῇ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν ἐν ἐλπίδι τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ.^*。↩︎
第4章末尾：προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοί κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.^*。引自太22:14。当这封书信的第4章尚只有拉丁文本存世时，克雷德纳 (Credner) 博士及其他批评学者怀疑“sicut scriptum est”（正如经上所记）一语是插文；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1853年) 推测，原文只有καθώς φησιν^*；德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 在其《使徒教父》(Apostolic Fathers) 第1版（1857年）中，于此处（in loc）评道：“Voces ’sicut scriptum est’ glossam olent.”（“正如经上所记”这几个字带有旁注窜入正文的痕迹。）然而，在《圣经》的西奈抄本中发现希腊文原文，已使这一问题得到解决，君士坦丁堡抄本也予以证实。施特劳斯 (Strauss) 及其他怀疑论者试图把这一引文归于伪经《以斯拉四书》；该书可能是一位犹太基督徒于耶路撒冷毁灭后所作，其中有一句：“生下来的人多，得救的人少。”这种尝试只值得作为先入之见何等顽固的例证而提及。↩︎
丰克（I. 364–366）列出《创世记》引文9处、《出埃及记》13处、《申命记》6处、《诗篇》14处、《以赛亚书》26处，等等，另有《以斯拉四书》1处、《以诺书》4处。参安格尔 (Anger)《福音书合参》(Synopsis Evang.，1852年) 中的列表；格布哈特与哈纳克，第217–230页。↩︎
见徒1:23；4:37；9:26及下节；11:22、30；14:4、14；15:2等。亚历山大的革利免在其《杂学》(Stromtata) 中七次引用这封书信（四次以巴拿巴之名）；他的学生俄利根引用三四次（《驳塞尔苏斯》Contra Cels. I. 63；《论原理》De Princ. III. 2；《罗马书注释》Ad Rom. I. 24）。德尔图良未提及此信，但似乎知道它（参《驳马吉安》Adv, Marc. III. 7；《驳犹太人》Adv. Jud. 14）；不过，他把《希伯来书》归于巴拿巴（《论贞洁》De Pudic. 第20章）。赫费勒与丰克在爱任纽、殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、伊格那丢和黑马 (Hermas) 的著作中，找到可能对它有所影射之处，但都不确定。关于巴拿巴的生平与工作，尤应参赫费勒与布劳恩斯贝格尔 (Braunsberger，第1–135页)。↩︎
优西比乌在《教会史》H. E. III. 25中将它列入“伪托”书籍（ἐν τοῖς νόθοις ... ἡ φερομένη Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή^*），但紧接着以及在VI. 14中，又将它列入“有争议的”书籍（ἀντιλεγόμενα^*）；哲罗姆（《名人传》De Vir. ill. 第6章）则说它“inter apocryphas scripturas”（在伪经之列）。↩︎
沃斯 (Voss)、杜潘 (Dupin)、加兰迪 (Gallandi)、凯夫 (Cave)、皮尔逊 (Pearson)、拉德纳 (Lardner)、亨克 (Henke)、勒达姆 (Rördam)、施内肯布格尔 (Schneckenburger)、弗兰克 (Franke)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、布莱克 (Bleek，早期观点)、德韦特 (De Wette)、默勒 (Möhler)、阿尔措格 (Alzog)、施普林茨尔 (Sprinzl，“是真作，却非出于默示”)、夏普 (Sharpe)。申克尔 (Schenkel，1837年) 和海德克 (Heydeke，1874年) 的插补说不能成立；本书的真伪必须作为一个整体来判断。↩︎
持此说的有乌舍尔 (Ussher)、达耶 (Daillé)、科特利耶 (Cotelier)、蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)、莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)、尼安德 (Neander)、乌尔曼 (Ullmann)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、赫费勒 (Hefele)、德林格尔 (Döllinger)、凯泽尔 (Kayser)、唐纳森 (Donaldson)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、米勒 (Müller)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)、布劳恩斯贝格尔 (Braunsberger)、哈纳克 (Harnack)、丰克 (Funk)。赫费勒提出八项理由反对其真实性；但其中五项全无定论的力量。见米利根 (Milligan)，前引处（l. c.）；他仔细考察这些论据，断定这封书信为真作的可能性，比现今一般所认为的更大。↩︎
或作“比一切罪更有罪的人”，ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους^*，homines omni peccato iniquiores，第5章。保罗论到自己从前逼迫教会的行为，可以出于真诚的谦卑，称自己为“罪人中的罪魁”（提前1:15）；但他断不会用这样的词称呼所有使徒，而且除犹大以外，这样的话用在任何一位使徒身上都不真实。↩︎
他还被指在犹太历史与敬拜方面犯了几处错误，这些错误很难想象会出于利未人巴拿巴之手。参第7、8、9、10、15章。然而，布劳恩斯贝格尔（第253页及下页）驳斥了这一点；他虽否认此信为真作，却指出这些章节为我们提供了饶有趣味的考古资料。↩︎
他两次被称为使徒，见徒14:4、14；他与保罗一同被列在ἀπόστολοι^*之中。↩︎
尼安德、默勒、赫费勒（1840年）、丰克、居德曼 (GüdemAnn) 持此说。另一方面，拉德纳、唐纳森、希尔根费尔德、凯泽尔、里根巴赫 (Riggenbach)、赫费勒（1868年）、布劳恩斯贝格尔、哈纳克主张，巴拿巴及其读者是外邦基督徒，因为他在第2、3、4、8、10、14、16章中，将自己和读者（ἡμεῖς^*）与犹太人区别开来。但约翰在《福音书》中也一贯作同样的区分；教会与会堂最终分离之后，这种区分是十分自然的。那些有关犹太历史的错误尚有疑问，其数目也少于证明作者熟悉犹太历史的证据。最有力的一段见第16章：“在我们成为信上帝的人以前，我们心灵的殿宇……充满了偶像崇拜，是鬼魔的居所，因为我们所行的违背了上帝的旨意。”然而，即使这段话更适用于异教徒，也并非不适用于犹太人；我们也不必假定读者中没有外邦人。临近第二世纪末，成员全属单一族群的会众大概已经很少。利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 认为读者在罗马，米勒认为在小亚细亚，申克尔、希尔根费尔德、哈纳克和丰克则认为在亚历山大或埃及。关于《希伯来书》的读者，也存在类似的意见分歧。↩︎
将第16章与第4章对但以理小角预言的解释相比较。↩︎
赫费勒、凯泽尔、鲍尔、米勒、利普修斯将成书时间定在107至120年之间（哈德良治下建造埃利亚·卡皮托利纳城〔Aelia Capitolina〕以前），布劳恩斯贝格尔则定在110至137年之间；但希尔根费尔德、罗伊斯 (Reuss，《新约史》Gesch. d. N. T，第4版，1864年，第233页)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald，《以色列民族史》Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. 136)、魏茨泽克（《德国神学年鉴》“Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol.”，1865年，第391页；1871年，第569页）、维泽勒（Ibid.，1870年，第603–614页）和丰克（Prol.，第VI页）则将其定在第一世纪末，甚至79年以前。维泽勒根据作者对但以理关于十国与小角之预言的解释（第4、16章），论证此信写于图密善治下；图密善是罗马第十一位皇帝，也是但以理所说的“小角”。魏茨泽克 (Weiszäcker) 和坎宁安 (Cunningham) 将这个小角指向韦斯帕芗（79–79年），希尔根费尔德则指向涅尔瓦 (Nerva)；但即使按最后一种说法，此信也应写于涅尔瓦去世的公元98年以前。米利根断定，它写于耶路撒冷毁灭后不久。然而，若那可怕的审判尚历历在目，我们就很难解释，为何还会有背教转归犹太教的危险。作者的目的似乎以犹太教的复兴，以及基督教会内部犹太倾向的复兴为前提。↩︎
《黑马牧人书》(Pastor Hermae)，Ὁ Ποιμήν^*。参《异象》Vis. I. 1、2、4；II. 2。↩︎
不过，这种划分出自后来的编者。↩︎
冯·格布哈特 (v. Gebh.) 和希尔根费尔德第II版（Hilgenf. ed. II.）依西奈抄本（Cod. Sin.）如此作。但各抄本差异很大。梵蒂冈抄本作：vendidit quandam puellam Romae（在罗马卖了一个女子）。εἰς Ῥώμην^*这些字似乎表明作者并非罗马人；但他常将εἰς^*与ἐν^*混用。↩︎
《异象》与《诫命》中仅三次提及救赎主的位格；在《比喻》中，黑马反复谈到“上帝的儿子”，似乎将他先存的神性与圣灵视为同一。《比喻》Sim. I X. 1：τό^* πνεῦμα^* τό ἅγιον^*... ὁ θεὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν^*。但不可对比喻中的一段话作过度引申，而且对此段也有不同解释。参希尔根费尔德《使徒教父》Ap. Väter, 第166页及下页；哈纳克对《比喻》Sim. V. 5及IX. 1的注释；察恩 (Zahn) 的不同见解，第139页及下页、第245页及下页；尤应参上引林克 (Link) 的专著（第680页）。↩︎
这是对《比喻》Simil. IX. 16那段奇特文字的自然解释：“这些传扬上帝儿子之名的使徒和教师，在上帝儿子的能力和信仰中睡了以后，也向那些已经睡了的人传道，并将传道的印记赐给他们。因此，他们与那些人一同下到水里，又一同上来（κατέβησαν οὖν μετ’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πάλιν ἀνέβησαν^*）。不过，前者活着下去，又活着上来；那些先前睡了的人，却是死着（νεκροί^*）下去，活着（ζῶντες^*）上来。”这种想象中的死后（post-mortem）洗礼，源于基督在阴间传道之说，彼前3:19；4:6。亚历山大的革利免赞同地引用这段话，但认为基督和使徒都曾在阴间施洗。见《杂学》Strom. II. 9. 44；VI. 6, 45, 46。科特利耶和唐纳森（第380页）将黑马的意思仅仅解释为比喻性、奥秘性的洗礼，或洗礼所象征的神圣福分，这是错误的。↩︎
最后一部在《第二异象》中被明确引用。↩︎
图宾根学派 (Tübingen School) 正是如此处理，但内部意见并不一致。施韦格勒 (Schwegler)，以及持保留意见的希尔根费尔德和利普修斯，将黑马视为伊便尼派 (Ebionite)；里奇尔 (Ritschl) 却相反，将他归于保罗的学派。黑马著作中完全没有伊便尼主义的基本特征——割礼、安息日、对保罗的反感；但另一方面，也看不出他理解保罗的独特教义。乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn) 一语中的（前引处，l.c.，第13页）：“Hermas ist ein Glied der damaligen orthodoxen Kirche, und seine Auffassung der christlichen Lehre die eines einfachen Gemeindegliedes one be stimmte Ausprägung irgend eines Parteicharakters.”（黑马是当时正统教会的一员，他对基督教教义的理解，是一个普通会友的理解，没有任何党派性格的鲜明印记。）↩︎
见格布哈特版第272–274页及丰克版I. 575–578所列黑马暗引经文的目录；希尔根费尔德《使徒教父》Die Ap. Väter, 第182–184页；察恩《以新约阐明的黑马牧人书》Hermae Pastore N. T. illustratus, 哥廷根 (Gött.)，1867年；以及《黑马牧人书》D. Hirt d. H.，第391–482页。察恩发现黑马相当熟悉新约著作。关于黑马与约翰的关系，见霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 载于希尔根费尔德《科学神学杂志》“Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.”，1875年，第40页及下页的文章。↩︎
俄利根 (Origen)（这是他个人的意见，puto enim，即“因为我认为”，等等）、优西比乌 (Eusebius)、哲罗姆如此认为，爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和亚历山大的革利免大概也持此说；近代作者中则有科特利耶、凯夫、拉德纳、加兰迪、伦佩尔 (Lumper)、拉赫曼 (Lachmann)、施普林茨尔。↩︎
加布 (Gaâb)、察恩、卡斯帕里 (Caspari)、阿尔措格、萨蒙 (Salmon，见《基督教传记辞典》“Dict. of Chr. Biog.” II. 912及下页)。↩︎
“Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma (Hermas) conscripsit, sedente, [in] cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. Et ideo legi cum quidem opportet, se[d] publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum [read: completos] numero, neque inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest.”（《牧人书》则是黑马最近在我们这时代于罗马城写成的，当时他的兄弟庇护主教正居罗马城教会的座位。因此，此书固然应当阅读，却不能在教会中向会众公开宣读，既不能列于数目已经完备的先知书中，也不能列于使徒著作中，因为它写于他们的时代终结以后。原文 completum 应读作 completos。）同一见解也见于伪托德尔图良驳马吉安的一首诗：

Post hunc [Hyginus] deinde Pius, Hermas, cui germine frater,

Angelicus Pastor, qui tradita verba locutus.

“在他〔许癸努斯 (Hyginus)〕之后是庇护；黑马是他的同胞兄弟，

那天使般的牧人，述说了所传授的话语。”

这一说法也见于《利贝里乌斯罗马主教名录》(Liberian Catalogue，公元354年)，并得到莫斯海姆、施勒克 (Schröckh)、克雷德纳、赫费勒、利普修斯、里奇尔、海内 (Heyne)、冯·格布哈特、哈纳克、布吕尔 (Brüll)、丰克、乌尔霍恩、鲍姆格特纳 (Baumgärtner) 的支持。另一些人认为，作者确是庇护的兄弟，但他假托一位更早的黑马的身份写作。↩︎
希尔根费尔德将这些作者分别标为H. a = Hermas apocalypticus（启示者黑马）、H. P. = Hermas pastoralis（牧人黑马）、H. s. = Hermas secundarius（第二黑马）。见序言 Prol.，第XXI页及下页。蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、德·尚帕尼伯爵 (Count de Champagny，《安敦尼诸帝》Les Antonins，第III版，1875年，T. I，第144页) 和盖朗热 (Guéranger) 同样假定作者不止一人。但本书是一个统一的整体。参哈纳克在1882年《神学文献报》“Theol. Literatur-Zeitung”第249页及下页对希尔根费尔德的反驳，以及上引林克、鲍姆格特纳、兰布罗斯 (Lambros) 的著作。↩︎
在《异象》Vis. II. 4中，黑马奉命写“两本书，一本送给革利免，一本送给格拉普特 (Grapte)”；革利免则应将这些书送往外地各城（εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις^*）。这似乎表明，他就是那位著名的罗马主教。格拉普特是一位女执事，照管寡妇和孤儿。俄利根认为，革利免和格拉普特分别代表属灵与字面的释经方法，这不过是寓意式的幻想。唐纳森和哈纳克假定，革利免是一位身份不明的人，但这与文中所设定的此人权威并不相符。↩︎
《第二异象》第2章中，有话对他说：“黑马啊，你的子孙得罪了上帝，亵渎了主；他们大行邪恶，出卖了自己的父母……他们的罪孽已经满盈。但你要将这些话告诉你所有的儿女，以及那将成为你姊妹的妻子。因为她不约束自己的舌头，借此作恶；但她听见这些话，就会约束自己，并蒙怜悯。”“将成为你姊妹”这句话，大概指日后的禁欲或分居。蒂耶蒙和赫费勒认为黑马是一位长老；弗勒里 (Fleury)、希尔根费尔德、蒂尔施、察恩、乌尔霍恩和萨蒙却认为他是平信徒。他每逢论及长老，总像自己并非其中一员，并且严厉斥责罗马教士。殉道者游斯丁也是一位平信徒传道人，但学养更高。↩︎
察恩根据黑马带有犹太色彩的希腊文习语，推断他在犹太人圈子中长大，或许还懂希伯来文。另一方面，哈纳克推测（《异象》Vis. I. 1注），黑马的父母是基督徒；否则，他就不会不提自己在罗达 (Rhoda) 家中归信一事。希尔根费尔德（第138页）认为黑马是犹太人，而卖掉他的主人是外邦人。罗宾逊 (Robinson) 推测，他是一名希腊奴隶（《比喻》Sim. IX.），写下了自己青年时代的回忆。↩︎
教会职员以复数的πρεσβύτεροι^*，或seniores（长老），或praesides（主持者）出现，地位平等；不过，罗马的革利免被认为对外地教会负有某种监督之责。见《异象》Vis. II. 2、4；III. 9；《比喻》Simil. IX. 31。黑马在一处（《异象》Vis. III. 5）提到四种职员：“使徒、主教、教师和执事。”这里的“主教”包括长老；“教师”则或指一切传福音者，或指长老兼主教的教导身份与职能（与他们的治理职能相区别）。在其他地方，他只提到ἀπόστολοι^*与διδάσκαλοι^*，见《比喻》Sim. IX. 15、16、25；参保罗的ποιμένες καί διδάσκαλοι^*，弗4:11。黑马对教会组织的陈述颇为松散而不明确。希尔根费尔德和哈纳克曾讨论这些陈述，以支持长老制；赫费勒和罗特 (Rothe) 则用来支持主教制。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 将黑马认定为庇护主教（140年）的兄弟，他说：“若非知道作者自己的兄弟是罗马主教（？），我们对他那个时代罗马教会的体制，便会茫然不知该说什么。”（《腓立比书注释》Com. on Philipp., 第218页。）↩︎
《驳异端》Adv. Haer. IV. 20，§ 2：εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα^*。随后引述《诫命》Mand. I. 1：“首先要信，只有一位上帝，他创造、预备了万有，从无中造出了一切。”这一误引可能是记忆上的疏失，因作者想到一些熟悉的经文：《马加比二书》7:28（πάντα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν^*）；来11:3；可12:29（ὁ θεὸς εἷς^* ἐστί^*）；雅2:18。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 认为，《彼得宣讲》κήρυγμα Πέτρου^*的作者以及伪革利免也知道《黑马牧人书》。↩︎
参见G.与H.《绪论》Prol., 第LIII—LVI页所引亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和俄利根 (Origen) 的话。察恩 (Zahn) 说：“《黑马牧人书》在东方教会获得权威的历史，始于人们毫无保留地承认它是一部以上帝启示为依据的书。”↩︎
只是私下阅读，还是也在教会中诵读？这段话含糊不清，存有争议。↩︎
由于这种相对宽容的态度（《诫命》Mand. IV. 1），德尔图良 (Tertullian) 讥讽地称黑马为“ille apocryphus Pastor maechorum”（那位伪托的、淫乱者的牧人）。《论贞洁》De Pud. 第20章；参第10章。↩︎
哲罗姆 (Jerome) 称《牧人书》为“revera utilis liber”（确实有益的书）。希腊某些教会公开诵读此书，许多古代作家也引它为权威，但它“在拉丁人中几乎无人知晓”（apud Latinos’ paene Ignotus）。《著作集》Op. II. 846。在另一处，即Op. VI. 604，他谴责了天使监管动物的观点（《异象》Vis. IV. 2）。↩︎
见本节末的附注。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius) 在《教会史》H. E. III. 39中说，他σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν^*，“识见极为狭小”，并说这一点从他的著作中便看得出来；但优西比乌的判断，无疑受到帕皮亚 (Papias) 强烈的千禧年论影响而失之不公，因为他刚在前文提到这一点；即使这一判断有充分根据，也不能因此否定帕皮亚就单纯事实所作的见证。在另一处（III. 36），优西比乌称他为学问渊博、熟悉圣经的人（ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εὐδήμων^*，omni doctrinae genere instructissimus et in scriptura sacra versatus，即精通各门学问，熟稔圣经）。学问、敬虔与健全的判断力，并不总是兼备。不过，优西比乌的某些抄本缺少这段话。见海尼兴 (Heinichen) 的注，第I卷，第141页及后。↩︎
παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης^*。优西比乌，III. 39（海尼兴版，1. 148）。↩︎
Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις^*，Explanatio sermonum Domini（《主言释义》）。ἐξήγησις^*一词在这里无疑是指对某种已经存在的福音记载所作的解释，因为西奈的阿纳斯塔修斯 (Anastasius of Sinai，卒于599年) 将帕皮亚列在圣经释经家或解经者之中。他很可能以正典福音书为本文，对其中所载主的讲论加以评注，同时补入他直接或间接从基督亲传门徒那里得来的言论。虽然这部著作已经失传数百年，仍有可能重新发现其原文，或其叙利亚文、亚美尼亚文译本。据加兰迪 (Gallandi) 和皮特拉 (Pitra) 说，1218年时，此书仍保存在尼姆 (Nismes) 教会的抄本收藏中。坎特伯雷 (Canterbury) 基督堂本笃会修道院图书馆的目录也三次提到它；这份目录收录在十三或十四世纪的科顿抄本 (Cottonian MS.) 中。唐纳森 (Donaldson)，第402页。关于λόγια^*的含义，见第I卷，第622页及下页。↩︎
见第I卷，第622、633页及下页。↩︎
复数形式（ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις^*，《教会史》H. E. III. 39）并不能反驳这一推测。D抄本在约8:3中读作ἁμαρτίᾳ^*，而不是μοιχείᾳ^*。↩︎
见上文§158，第616页。皮特拉枢机 (Card. Pitra) 在其《索莱姆杂辑》Spicileg. Solesm., 第I卷中刊出了一段类似的残篇，但正如标题和开头几句话所表明的，这译自爱任纽 (Irenaeus)，而不是帕皮亚。《圣约翰的门徒》The Pupils of St. John 的女作者在第203页评论帕皮亚的那段描述说：“若按字面理解，这当然与我们所知、我们可称颂之主那超凡的教训全然不同；然而，它听来确实像是一个拘泥字面、识见狭隘的人，仅凭耳闻的叙述，可能从葡萄树、撒种者或芥菜种的比喻中领会出来的意思。我们也由此看见，我们主的真实话语如此早便由两位亲眼见证者和两位有学问的人，在圣灵引导下记录下来，而没有任凭那些善良却迟钝的信徒作出各自的转述，这是何等出于上帝的护理，又是何等的怜悯。”↩︎
一项中世纪传统认为，帕皮亚记述了《约翰福音》的起源，甚至曾作为约翰的书记，参与这部福音书的写作。一个九世纪抄本中《约翰福音》卷首的附记即如此说；皮特拉和蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 于1866年在梵蒂冈图书馆重新发现了它。蒂申多夫认为，这则附记早于哲罗姆，原文如下：“Evangelium johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab johanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus discipulus johannis carus in exotericis [exegeticis], id est in extremis, quinque libras retulit. Discripsit vero evangeliumdictante johanne recte.”等等。意即：“约翰尚在世时，便将他的福音书显明并交付众教会，正如希拉波立那位名叫帕皮亚、为约翰所爱的门徒，在其五卷外传〔释义〕、即最后几卷中所记。他又照约翰的口述，准确地抄写了这部福音书。”最后一句很可能是对希腊文的误译。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 载于《当代评论》“Contemp. Rev.”1875年10月的文章，第854页；查特里斯 (Charteris)，《正典性》Canonicity, 第168页。另一个见证见于一位希腊注释家的残篇，即科尔德里乌斯 (Corderius) 编《希腊教父圣约翰福音注释汇编》Catena Patrum Graecorum in S. Johannem（安特卫普，1630年）的序言 (Proaemium)；据此，约翰曾向希拉波立的帕皮亚口授他的福音书。见格布哈特与哈纳克版《帕皮亚残篇》Papiae Frag.，第194页。优西比乌对此缄默不言，使这一传统失去可信性，但它表明，在中世纪教会看来，帕皮亚与《约翰福音》有密切关系。↩︎
凯撒利亚的安德烈 (Andreas of Caesarea)，《启示录注释》In Apoc. 第34章，第12篇讲道。见v. G.与H.版，第189页。↩︎
连优西比乌、哲罗姆或佛提乌 (Photius) 都未曾提到它。默勒 (Möhler) 在《教父学》Patrol. 第170页引证佛提乌，但佛提乌谈的是殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)，他很熟悉游斯丁的著作。见赫根勒特 (Hergenröther)，《佛提乌》Photius, III. 19及下页。↩︎
ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Διόγνητον, καὶ Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*。《哲学家兼殉道者游斯丁致丢格那妥书及对希腊人的演说》：lustini Philosophi et Martyris Ep. ad Diognetum, et Oratio ad Graecos, nunc primum luce et latinitate donatae ab Henrico Stephano. Eiusdem Henr. Stephani annotationibus additum est Io. lacobi Beureri de quorundam locorum partim interpretatione partim emendations iudicium. Tatiani, discipuli Iustini, quaedam. Excudebat Henricus Stephanus. Anno MDXCII. 即：由亨利库斯·斯特法努斯 (Henricus Stephanus) 首次刊行并译为拉丁文；除斯特法努斯本人的注释外，附约翰·雅各布·博伊勒 (Io. Iacobus Beurer) 对若干段落之解释与校订的意见；并收游斯丁门徒塔提安 (Tatian) 的若干作品。亨利库斯·斯特法努斯印行，1592年。斯蒂芬斯 (Stephens) 的抄本至今仍藏于莱顿大学图书馆。博伊勒的抄本已经遗失，但很可能抄自斯特拉斯堡抄本 (Strassburg Codex)，因为斯蒂芬斯在附录中、叙尔堡 (Sylburg) 在注释中所刊出的博伊勒抄本异读，都与该抄本一致。↩︎
“Epistulae ad Diognetum unum tantummodo exemplar antiquius ad nostram usque pervenit memoriam: codicem dico loannis Reuchlini quondam, postea Argentoratensem, qui misero illo incendio die nono ante Calendas Septembres anni MDCCCLXX cum tot aliis libris pretiosis in ciner es dilapsus est.”即：“《致丢格那妥书》只有一个较古老的抄本流传到我们这一代；我所说的，就是原属约翰内斯·罗伊希林 (Ioannes Reuchlin)、后来归斯特拉斯堡所有的抄本。它在1870年8月24日那场惨痛的火灾中，与许多其他珍贵书籍一同化为灰烬。”冯·格布哈特 (Von Gebhardt) 与哈纳克 (Harnack)，第205页。他们在第208页断言，斯蒂芬斯和博伊勒的抄本都抄自斯特拉斯堡抄本。奥托 (Otto) 在《绪论》Prol. 第3页说有“tres codices, Argentoratensis, apographon Stephani, apoqraphon Beureri”，即三个抄本：斯特拉斯堡本、斯蒂芬斯抄本和博伊勒抄本。↩︎
比较《致丢格那妥书》Ep. ad Diog., 第1章与马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius)《沉思录》Medit., IX. 3（这是他唯一一次提及基督教，已引于第329页）。马可·奥勒留在《沉思录》Medit., I. 6中怀着感激追念他的老师丢格那妥 (Diognetus)。丢格那妥并不是罕见的名字；不过，本书信的收信人是一位社会地位显赫的人，κράτιστος^*（honorable，尊贵的）这一称呼便表明了这一点。奥托和埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 认定两者是同一人。凯姆 (Keim) 和德雷泽克 (Dräseke，第141页) 承认本书信中的丢格那妥属于宫廷，但认为他的年代较晚。↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 在《以色列民族史》Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 第VII卷，第150页，将它列为所有未收入新约的早期基督教书信之首，并说它完美地结合了“希腊雄辩的丰赡与技巧，以及最纯粹的爱真理之心；措辞的从容优雅，以及基督徒那令人振奋的庄严认真”。本生 (Bunsen) 说：“无可争议，除圣经之外，这是健全的基督徒情感、高贵的勇气和刚健雄辩最优美的丰碑。”塞米施 (Semisch，在赫尔措格百科全书中) 称它为“ein Kleinod des christl. Alterthums, welchem in Geist und Fassung kaum ein zweites Schriftwerk der nachapostolishen Zeit gleichsteht”，即“基督教古代的一件瑰宝，在精神与表达上，使徒后时期几乎没有第二部作品可以与之匹敌”。凯姆在《罗马与基督教》Rom und das Christenthum, 第463页及下页，称它为“das lieblichste, ja ein fast zauberhaftes Wort des zweiten Jahrhunders”，即“第二世纪最可爱、甚至近乎迷人的言辞”；并雄辩地赞美它的“die reine, klassische Sprache, den schönen, korrekten Satzbau, die rhetorische Frische, die schlagenden Antithesen, den geistreichen Ausdruck, die logische Abrundung ... die unmittelbare, liebswarme, begeisterte, wenn schon mit Bildung durchsättigte Frömmigkeit”，即“纯净而古典的语言，优美而准确的句法，清新的修辞，鲜明有力的对照，富于才智的表达，圆融严整的逻辑……以及虽饱含文化修养，却仍直接自然、充满温暖爱意与热忱的敬虔”。↩︎
已引于上文§2，第9页。↩︎
见上文§153，第587页。↩︎
“仿佛不是别人，正是保罗本人为那个时代重新活了过来。”埃瓦尔德，VII. 149。↩︎
Ἀποστόλων γενόμενος μαθητής^*，第11章。↩︎
凯夫 (Cave)、法布里修斯 (Fabricius) 和奥托主张作者是游斯丁；塞米施、赫费勒 (Hefele)、凯姆等人则驳斥此说。↩︎
蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 和默勒将它定于第一世纪，赫费勒和埃瓦尔德则定于哈德良 (Hadrian) 在位时期（120—130年）。韦斯科特 (Westcott，《新约正典》Can. N. T. 第76页) 说：不早于图拉真 (Trajan) 时期，也不会晚很多；一切迹象都表明年代很早。↩︎
凯姆持此说，并提出应是血腥的177年。↩︎
希尔根费尔德、利普修斯 (Lipsius)、加斯 (Gass)、察恩和德雷泽克均持此说（塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁斯〔Septimus Severus〕在位期间，193—211年之间）。奥弗贝克 (Overbeck) 将其年代定于君士坦丁之后的假说，已经被驳倒。↩︎
殉道者游斯丁（抄本传统）；尚未脱离教会的马吉安 (Marcion，本生说)；夸德拉图斯 (Quadratus，多尔纳〔Dorner〕说)；晚年的诺斯替派人物阿佩勒斯 (Apelles，德雷泽克，第141页)。史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 所编著作第II卷、第162页该条目的作者，认定作者是某位安布罗修斯 (Ambrosius)，“他是希腊的一位首要人物，成为基督徒后，他所有的同僚议员都喧嚷着反对他”；并引库尔顿 (Cureton)《叙利亚文杂辑》Spicil. Syriacum，第61—69页为据。将此书归于斯蒂芬斯的假说，以及科特里尔 (Cotterill) 的相关主张，在文学和道德上都不可能成立。↩︎
爱任纽（《驳异端》Adv. Haer. 第III卷，第3章，§3）提到，他是继革利免、埃瓦里斯图斯 (Evaristus) 和亚历山大 (Alexander) 之后的罗马主教。优西比乌（《教会史》H. E. IV. 5）记载，他治理罗马教会十年。雅费 (Jaffé，《罗马教宗文书汇录》Regesta Ponti cum Rom. 第3页) 将他的任期定在119至128年之间。第二位同名教宗于公元257或258年殉道。在《手册》Enchiridion 的作者问题上，人们有时混淆了这两人。西伯 (Siber) 曾以西克斯图斯二世 (Sixtus II) 的名义出版此书。↩︎
例文见附注。↩︎
参见《教父大丛书》Biblioth. Max. III. 525，以及丰塔尼尼 (Fontanini) 和法布里修斯前引书（l. c.）中的相关引证。↩︎
尼安德 (Neander)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、鲍尔 (Baur)、唐纳森等人甚至没有提到此书。↩︎
《以色列史》Geschichte Israels, 第VII卷，第322页。另参他在《哥廷根学术通报》“Göttingen Gel. Anzeigen.”1859年，第261—269页，对拉加德《叙利亚文杂辑》Lagardii Analecta Syriaca 所作的评论。埃瓦尔德及其继任者P.德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 都无视先前的一切版本与讨论，颇显他们各自一贯的作风。↩︎
《教会史》Hist. Eccl. IV. 3。↩︎
这一发现引出了相当多的研究文献，哈纳克在《文献与研究》Texte und Untersuchungen 等，I，第110页，注23中列举了它们。第一部分最为重要。参见戈蒂耶 (Gautier) 载于《神学与哲学评论》“Revue de théol. et de philos.”1879年，第78—82页的法译；以及欣佩尔 (Himpel) 载于《图宾根神学季刊》“Tübing. Theol. Quartalschrift”1880年的德译，后者由哈纳克重印于第111、112页。史密斯与韦斯所编著作第I卷中的“阿里斯提德”条目（第160页）已经落后于研究进展。比歇勒 (Bücheler) 和勒南 (Renan) 怀疑这份文献的真实性；戈蒂耶、博纳尔 (Baunard)、欣佩尔和哈纳克则为其辩护；但哈纳克认为其中有些插文，例如用来称童贞女马利亚的theotokos（上帝之母）一词。亚美尼亚文抄本的年代为981年，而译文似乎是在第五世纪由希腊文译成的。在优西比乌时代，此书在教会中仍广为人知。但梅希塔尔会士 (Mechitarists) 同样归于阿里斯提德的第二篇作品，却是一篇年代较晚的讲道，显然是针对聂斯托利派 (Nestorianism) 的。↩︎
方括号内的句子读来显得重复，像是尼西亚会议之后的插文。↩︎
见上文§38，第107页，以及前引书（l.c.）I. 115—130。↩︎
德尔图良 (Tertullian) 最先称他为 philosophus et martyr（哲学家兼殉道者；《反瓦伦廷派》Adv. Valent. 5）；希波吕托 (Hippolytus，《哲学论》Philos. VIII. 16) 称他为“殉道者游斯丁”；优西比乌 (Eusebius，《教会史》H. E. IV. 12) 称他为“真正热爱真哲学的人”，他“身穿哲学家的服装，宣讲上帝的道，并以著作为信仰辩护”（IV. 17）。↩︎
《与犹太人特里丰对话》Dial.c. Tryph. Jud. 第2—8章。这次归信发生在巴尔·科赫巴 (Bar-Cochba) 战争之前；游斯丁遇见特里丰 (Tryphon) 时，后者正在逃避这场战争。特伦奇 (Trench) 大主教以富有深思的诗篇重述了这个故事（《诗集》Poems，伦敦，1865年，第1—10页）。↩︎
这座城可能是弗拉维亚·尼亚波利 (Flavia Neapolis)，但更可能是以弗所 (Ephesus)；据优西比乌（IV. 18）说，与特里丰 (Trypho) 的谈话就发生在那里。有人把场景定在哥林多，也有人定在亚历山大。这些都不过是猜测。↩︎
《护教辞》Apol. II. 12、13。↩︎
蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 和马兰 (Maran，见米涅版，第114栏) 从他描述洗礼的方式（《护教辞》Apol. I. 65）推断，他本人曾为人施洗，因此是一位司祭。但游斯丁在该段（“我们这样洗过他之后”，等等）以及整篇《护教辞》中，都是代表基督徒发言；况且，施洗并非圣职人员专有的职务，平信徒也可以施行。马兰根据长官向游斯丁同伴所提的问题（见他的《殉道录》）作出的推断，也同样不能成立：“Christianos vos ferit Justinus?”（是游斯丁使你们成为基督徒的吗？）↩︎
τρίβων^*、τριβώνιον^*，pallium，一种破旧的外衣，为哲学家以及后来的修士所采用（即兜帽僧衣），用以象征刻苦治学或严谨苦修的生活，或兼表两者。↩︎
φιλόσοφε, Χαῖρε^*！哲学家，你好！↩︎
我再补引普雷桑塞 (Pressensé) 的评价（《殉道者与护教士》Martyrs and Apologists，第251页）：“真理从未有过这样一位见证人，如此无私，如此勇敢，如此配受一个不敬虔时代的仇恨和上天的嘉许。他的胸襟与心智之宽广，不亚于他热忱之炽烈，而二者都以他的基督徒之爱为根基。游斯丁的一切雄辩都发自内心；他的天赋并非罕见的卓越之才，但他早年生活的经历，经启示照亮，成为他本人许多丰硕思想的源泉，也给教会留下了一份思想遗产；这份遗产在亚历山大成熟、发展，后来成为基督教伟大护教事业的基础。除了道以萌芽的形式存在于每个人之中这一优美教义，游斯丁的神学思想几乎没有什么独创性。在释经上，他精细曲折，有时流于幼稚；在论证上，他后劲不足；然而，当他的心发言时，他便显出全部道德上的伟大，而他诚挚、宽厚的话语始终生动有力，切中要害。假如他一直是个异教徒，他便会在博学而平庸的生活中默默无闻地度过一生。基督教点燃了他的天赋，使之结出果实；我们在他所有著作中最乐于探寻的，正是这个炽热的灵魂。”↩︎
写作的年份无法绝对确定。《第一护教辞》First Apology 的呈献词是：“致皇帝（αὐτοκράτορι^*）提图斯·埃利乌斯·哈德良·安敦尼 (Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus)，虔敬者、奥古斯都凯撒；及其子、哲学家维里西穆斯 (Verissimus)［即马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius)］；及哲学家［？］卢基乌斯 (Lucius)——他按血统是凯撒［即凯撒埃利乌斯·维鲁斯 (Caesar Aelius Verus)］之子，按收养关系是虔敬者之子；及神圣的元老院；及全体罗马人民”，等等。这篇呈献词不合朝廷的正式格式，或许是后人增添的（如蒙森 (Mommsen) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 所怀疑的），但无人怀疑其大体正确。马可·奥勒留在138年被安敦尼收养之后便不再使用“维里西穆斯”这一称号，而呈献词又未用他在139年获得的“凯撒”称号；早期批评家由此推断，本书必定写于哈德良死后（137年）不久。优西比乌在《编年史》Chronicon 中将它系于141年。支持早期定年的另一事实是：写于《护教辞》之后的《对话》中，巴尔·科赫巴战争（132—135年）被描述为仍在进行，至少也是新近发生的事（φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον^*，ex bello nostra aetate profugus，即逃离我们这个时代发生的战争，第I章；比较第9章）。但另一方面，马可·奥勒留直到147年才真正与安敦尼共同执政，而在书中，游斯丁似乎暗示有两位统治者。此外，卢基乌斯·维鲁斯 (Lucius Verus) 生于130年，在八岁时很难被称为“哲学家”；不过，优西比乌所读的是“哲学家凯撒之子”，而φιλόσοφος^*一词的用法又十分宽泛。更有分量的事实是，《第一护教辞》写于反马吉安 (Marcion) 的《论集》Syntagma 之后；马吉安在139—145年间活跃于罗马，尽管这一定年也不完全确定。游斯丁说，他写作时距救主降生已150年；如果这不只是一个约数，便有助于确定年代。基于这些理由，现代批评家将其定在147—150年（福尔克马尔、鲍尔 (Baur)、冯·恩格尔哈特 (Von Engelhardt)、霍特 (Hort)、唐纳森 (Donaldson)、霍兰 (Holland)），或150年（利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和勒南 (Renan)），或160年（凯姆 (Keim) 和奥贝 (Aubé)）。篇幅较短的《护教辞》同样写于安敦尼·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 在位时期（尼安德 (Neander)、奥托 (Otto)、福尔克马尔、霍特均持此说，与优西比乌，IV. 15、18，以及将其定在马可·奥勒留统治时期的旧说相反）；因为它预设有两位统治者，却只有一位最高君主，而在他死后便有两位“奥古斯都”，即最高君主。关于年代，见福尔克马尔：《殉道者游斯丁的时代》Die Zeit Just. des M.，载图宾根《神学年鉴》“Theol. Jahrb.”，1855年（第2、4期）；霍特：《论殉道者游斯丁的年代》On the Date of Justin M.，载《古典与神圣语文学杂志》“Journal of Classic and Sacred Philology”，1856年6月；唐纳森，II，第73页及后；恩格尔哈特，前引书，第71—80页；凯姆，Rom. u. d. Christenth.，第425页；勒南，前引书，第367页注；以及哈纳克 (Harnack)，《文献与研究》Texte und Unters. 等，1，第172页及下页。↩︎
霍特将《对话》Dial. 定于142至148年之间；福尔克马尔定于155年；凯姆定于160—164年之间；恩格尔哈特 (Englehardt) 定于148年或以后。↩︎
关于这些反异端著作，见哈纳克：《诺斯替主义史料批判》Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus（1873年）；利普修斯：《最早异端史的史料》Die Quellen der ältesten Letzergeschichte（1875年）；以及希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)：D. Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums（1884年，第21页及后）。↩︎
《致希腊人演说》Oratio ad Graecos，λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*。↩︎
见上文§170，第702页。↩︎
《劝勉希腊人》Cohortatio ad Graecos，λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*。此书以尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯 (Julius Africanus) 的著作为依据，唐纳森已予证明；许勒 (Schürer) 也独立得出了同一结论，见《教会史杂志》“Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.”第II卷，第319页。↩︎
关于这些真伪存疑及伪托的著作，见马拉努斯 (Maranus)、奥托、塞米施 (Semisch)、唐纳森以及哈纳克（前引书，第190—193页）。↩︎
关于这些真伪存疑及伪托的著作，见马拉努斯 (Maranus)、奥托、塞米施 (Semisch)、唐纳森以及哈纳克（前引书，第190—193页）。↩︎
比较奥托：《论游斯丁的文体》De Justiniana dictione，载《导论》Proleg.，第LXIII—LXXVI页。勒南的判断颇有意味，却难称公允。他说（第365页）：“Justin n’était un grand esprit; il manquait à la, fois de philosophie et de critique; son exégèse surtout passerait aujour d’ hui pour très défectueuse; mais il fait preuve dun sens général assez droit; it avait cette espèce, de crédulité médiocre qui permet de raissonner sensément sur des prémisses puériles et de s’arrêter à temps de façon à n’être qu’à moitié absurde.”（游斯丁并非伟大的思想家；他既缺乏哲学，也缺乏批判能力；尤其是他的释经，在今日会被认为缺陷甚多；然而，他表现出大体相当端正的判断力；他具有一种平庸的轻信，使他能够从幼稚的前提出发作出合乎情理的推论，并及时止步，从而只落得半分荒谬。）下一页他又说：“Justin était un esprit faible; mais c’était un noble et bon coeur.”（游斯丁的心智薄弱，但他的心却高尚善良。）唐纳森公允地指出（II，第15页及下页），人们归于游斯丁和其他护教士的文体与推理上的缺点，在普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 以及所有其他同时代作家身上也都可以找到；即使更加博学、更有才干的作家，也不过能以更精致、更润饰的形式提出同样的论据。↩︎
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων^*，这是游斯丁特有的称呼，见于《护教辞》和《对话》，别处却不见；无疑借自色诺芬 (Xenophon) 关于苏格拉底的《回忆录》Memorabilia。他有四次仅称之为“回忆录”，四次称“使徒的（或使徒所写的）回忆录”；一次称“使徒所作的回忆录”，这些构成了那一部福音（τὸ εὐαγγέλιον^*，《对话》Dial. 第10章），并“被称为福音书”（ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια^*，《护教辞》Apol. I. 66，这是一处决定性的经文）；还有一次在引用马可时，称之为“彼得的回忆录”。经过长期而深入的讨论，尽管《超自然宗教》Supernatural Religion 的作者仍有疑问，这些回忆录就是我们的正典福音书，已成定论。不过，游斯丁也可能使用过某种福音合参，正如他的学生塔提安 (Tatian) 后来确曾编成的那一种。↩︎
一处无可置疑的《约翰福音》引文（3:3—5），已在第I卷第703页及下页讨论过。即便他没有引用约翰的话，他也显然是在约翰的思想境界中活动。↩︎
游斯丁引用或暗指圣经之处的清单，见奥托版，第579—592页。其中最多的是摩西五经、《以赛亚书》《马太福音》和《路加福音》。世俗作家中，他引用了柏拉图 (Plato)、荷马 (Homer)、欧里庇得斯 (Euripides)、色诺芬 (Xenophon) 和米南德 (Menander)。↩︎
唐纳森（II，第148页）根据他的撒玛利亚出身，以及他曾在一两处尝试解释希伯来词的词源（《护教辞》Apol. I. 33），推断他必定略懂希伯来文；但即便如此，也必定懂得极少；无论如何，他从未援引希伯来原文。↩︎
他称基督教信仰为（《对话》Dial. 第8章）μόνη φιλοσοφία ἀσφαλής τε καὶ σύμφορος^*，sola philosophia tuta atque utilis，即唯一稳妥而有益的哲学。↩︎
τελευταῖος νόμος καὶ διαθήκη κυριωτάτη πασῶν^*，novissima lex et foedus omnium firmissimum，即最后的律法和一切盟约中最坚固的约。《对话》Dial. 第II章。↩︎
这与黑格尔 (Hegel) 的原则大不相同：凡是合乎理性的都是现实的，凡是现实的都是合乎理性的。↩︎
他称他们为ἄχρηστοι^*（无用的），《护教辞》Apol. I. 46；这里涉及Χριστός^*与χρηστός^*（良善的）常被混淆的情况。比较《护教辞》Apol. I. 4：Χριστιανοὶ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα: τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον.^*。不过，游斯丁知道Χριστός^*的真正词源，见《护教辞》Apol. II. 6。↩︎
关于柏拉图主义与基督教关系这一总题，见阿克曼 (Ackermann)：《柏拉图思想中的基督教成分》Das Christliche im Plato（1835年；Asburv 英译，谢德 (Shedd) 作序，1861年）；鲍尔：《苏格拉底与基督》Socrates und Christus（1837年，1876年由策勒 (Zeller) 再版）；泰勒·刘易斯 (Tayler Lewis)：《柏拉图反对无神论者》Plato against the Atheists（1845年）；汉普登 (Hampden)：《希腊哲学之父》The Fathers of the Greek Philosophy（1862年）；科克尔 (Cocker)：《基督教与希腊哲学》Christianity and Greek Philosophy（1870年）；于伯韦格 (Ueberweg) 的《哲学史》History of Philosophy（英译本，1872年）；以及阿默斯特学院 (Amherst College) W. S. 泰勒 (W. S. Tyler) 教授载于《沙弗—赫尔佐格宗教百科全书》Schaff-Herzog’s Rel. Encycl. 第三卷的一篇优秀文章（1883年，第1850—1853页）。关于游斯丁与柏拉图主义及异教的关系，见冯·恩格尔巴特 (von Engelbardt)，前引书，第447—484页。↩︎
比较唐纳森，III，第27页及后。↩︎
他在《致希腊人》Ad Gr. 第29、30章中亲自叙述了自己的归信。下面这段话（第29章）颇为动人：“当我极其专注地思考这件事［发现真理］时，偶然读到一些蛮族的著作；它们年代之古，希腊人的见解无法与之相比；它们的神圣，也非希腊人的谬误所能比拟。我之所以信从这些著作，是由于其语言朴实无华，作者毫不矫饰，对未来事件表现出预知，训诫品质卓越，并且宣告宇宙的统治集中于一位存在者。我的灵魂蒙上帝教导，就辨明前一类著作把人引向定罪，而这些著作却终结世间的奴役，把我们从众多统治者和万千暴君手中解救出来；它们所赐给我们的，并不是我们从前未曾领受的，反倒是我们已经领受、却因谬误阻挠而未能持守的。”↩︎
Πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*，《致希腊人演说》Oratio ad Graecos。最好的校勘版由 Ed. 施瓦茨 (Ed. Schwartz) 编订，莱比锡，1888年。关于抄本，另见奥托的《导论》Proleg.，以及哈纳克的《文献》Texte 等，第I卷第I分册，第1—97页。B. P. 普拉滕 (B. P. Pratten) 的英译载于《尼西亚前期文库》“Ante-Nicene Library”，III，第1—48页；美国版II，第59页及后。下文所引的片段均取自这一译本，并与希腊原文作了比较。↩︎
Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων^*。优西比乌，《教会史》H. E. IV. 29，以及狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)，《异端寓言》Fab. Haer. I. 20，都提到《四福音合参》 (Diatessaron)。比较默辛格 (Mösinger) 为其所编《以法莲注释》Ephroem’s Com. 所作的导言（威尼斯，1876年）、察恩 (Zahn) 的《塔提安的四福音合参》Tatian’s Diatessaron（1881年），以及第493页提到的恰斯卡 (Ciasca) 所编阿拉伯文译本（1888年）。↩︎
金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 的执事西得的腓力 (Philippus Sidetes) 所作的记载，由尼基弗鲁斯·卡利斯图斯 (Nicephorus Callistus) 保存下来，却完全不可靠。他把雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras) 说成哈德良 (Hadrian) 在位时亚历山大学校的第一任校长，又说他是亚历山大的革利免的老师——这是明显的年代错误——还说他把《护教辞》献给哈德良和安敦宁 (Antoninus)，这又与该书题献的文字相矛盾。不过，在美多 Methodius 的《论复活》(De Resurrectione) 一篇残篇中，确实有引自雅典那哥拉《护教辞》第24章的文字，并署有他的名字。↩︎
Πρεσβεία^*（使团）περὶ Χριστιανῶν^*，Legatio（亦称 Supplicatio, Intercessio）pro Christianis，即《为基督徒请愿》。有些人按标题的通常意义来理解，认为雅典那哥拉确曾作为代表前往皇帝那里。本书在十五世纪屡经抄写，现存十七部抄本；其中最好的三部也收有《论复活》。两书均由亨利·斯蒂芬斯 (Henry Stephens) 于1557年刊行，此后又多次出版。反对其真实性的理由薄弱，而且已被驳倒。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《教会史》H. E. IV. 20，以及其《编年史》Chron. 马可·奥勒留 (M. Aurelius) 第IX年条。相传他的前任依次为彼得、艾沃狄乌斯 (Evodius)、伊格那修 (Ignatius)、希伦 (Heron)、哥尼流 (Cornelius) 和厄洛斯 (Eros)。比较哈纳克 (Harnack)，《伊格那修的年代与安提阿诸主教直至推兰努斯的编年》(Die Zeit des Ignat. und die Chronologie der Antiochen. Bischöfe bis Tyrannus)，莱比锡，1878年，第56页。哲罗姆（De Vir. ill. 25；Ep. ad Algas.；以及《马太福音注释》序言 Praef. in Com. Matth.）、拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)（Inst. div. 1. 23）和马西利亚的根纳狄乌斯 (Cennadius of Massila)（De Vir. ill. 34）也提到提阿非罗 (Theophilus) 及其著作；但后来的希腊人，甚至佛提乌 (Photius)，似乎已将他遗忘。见哈纳克，Texte，I，第282页及后。勒南称他为“un docteur très fécond, un catechiste doné d’un grand talent d’exposition, un polémiste habile selon les idées du temps.”——“一位著述极丰的教师，一位极富阐释才能的教理教师，按当时的观念来说，也是一位娴熟的论战家。”↩︎
Θεοφίλου πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον^*，Theophili ad Autolycum，《提阿非罗致奥托吕库斯》。他的《致奥托吕库斯》(Ad Autolycum) 现存三部抄本，最好的一部出自十一世纪，保存在威尼斯。见奥托 (Otto) 及唐纳森 (Donaldson)，第105页。初次印行于1546年，苏黎世。英译本有三种：J. 贝蒂 (J. Betty) 译，牛津，1722年；W. B. 弗劳尔 (W. B Flower) 译，伦敦，1860年；马库斯·多兹 (Marcus Dods) 译，爱丁堡，1867年（载《尼西亚前期文库》“Ante-Nicene Libr.” III，第49—133页）。↩︎
《致奥托吕库斯》Ad Autol. II. 15（载米涅版 Migne VI. 1077），其中称创造的头三日为 τύποι τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς^*σοφία^*" αὐτοῦ^*，即上帝、他的道和他的智慧这三一的预表。比较第18章（第1081栏），其中在《创世记》1:26中看出三一。提阿非罗的《福音书注释》中，trinitas（三一）一词出现五次（见察恩 Zahn，前引书，第143页）。在拉丁作家中，德尔图良最先使用 trinitas 一词（Adv Prax. 4；De Pud. 21）。↩︎
《致奥托吕库斯》Ad Autol. II. 22：“圣经以及一切受圣灵感动的人都教导我们；在他们中间，约翰说：‘太初有道（Logos），道与上帝同在。’”随后他又引用《约翰福音》1:3。↩︎
这是英语的拼法。德国人和法国人拼作 Sardes（希腊文为 αἱ Σάρδεις^*，但在希罗多德 Herodotus 的著作中也作 Σάρδις^*）。↩︎
勒南认为这是一次自残行为（《基督教会》L’église chrét.，第436页）：“Comme plus tard Origène, il voulut que sa chasteté fût en quelque sorte matériellement constatée.”——“如同后来的奥利金一样，他想让自己的贞洁在某种意义上得到身体上的证实。”然而，圣约翰也被德尔图良称为 spado（阉人，De Monog. 17），被哲罗姆称为 eunuchus（阉人，In Es. 第56章）。雅典那哥拉用 εὐνουχία^* 表示男子的节欲，见《请愿书》Leg. 第33章：τὸ ἐν παρθενείᾳ καὶ ἐν εὐνουχίᾳ μεῖναι^*，in virginitate et eunuchi statu manere，即保持童贞和阉人的状态。↩︎
“Elegans et declamatorium ingenium”，即“文雅而善于雄辩的才华”，见他已佚的《论出神》(Ecstasis)，由哲罗姆引于 De Vir. ill. 24。哈纳克将米利都 (Melito) 与德尔图良作比较：两人的著述题材都很多样，也同样雄辩，但在文体的优雅上并不相似。↩︎
优西比乌（IV. 26）先提到他向罗马皇帝呈献的、为信仰辩护的《护教辞》，随后列举如下著作：“两部《论逾越节》(On the Passover)，以及《论生活准则与先知》(On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets，τὸ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν^*，可能是两部独立的书，或许 καί^* 是 τῶν^* 之误）；一部《论教会》(On the Church)，另一篇《论主日》(On the Lord’s Day，περὶ κυριακῆς^*）；又有一部《论人的本性》(On the Nature of Man，περὶ φύσεως^*，另一读法为‘信仰’，πίστεως^*），另一部《论人的形成》(On his Formation，περὶ πλάσεως^*）；一部《论感官对信仰的顺服》(On the Subjection of the Senses to Faith)［ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων^*，鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 将其改成两部书：de obedientia fidei; de sensibus，即《论信仰的顺服》《论感官》；尼基弗鲁斯也如此］。此外，还有一篇《论灵魂、身体与心智》(On the Soul, the Body, and the Mind)；又有《论洗礼》(On Baptism) 一篇，《论真理与信仰》(On Truth and Faith) 一篇，以及［可能另有一篇论］《基督的出生》(the Generation of Christ)；他的《论预言》(On Prophecy) 和《论款待客旅》(On Hospitality)；一篇名为《钥匙》(The Key，ἡ κλείς^*) 的论著；他的《论魔鬼》(On the Devil) 和《约翰的启示录》(The Revelation of John)；《论道成肉身的上帝》(On God Incarnate，περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ^*，比较 ἐνσωμάτωσις^*＝道成肉身）；最后是呈献给安敦宁的论说（βιβλίδιον^*）。”他随后又加上一部名为 Ἐκλογαί^* 的书，内收《旧约》摘录。有些标题可能指两部不同的书，如 τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου, καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου^*。鲁菲努斯和哲罗姆就是这样理解这个标题的。见海尼兴 (Heinichen) 的注释。后来的作家还把其他著作归于他，如《论基督道成肉身》(On the Incarnation of Christ，περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ^*）、《论十字架》(On the Cross)、《论信仰》(On Faith)，以及两部确属伪托的作品：《圣约翰受难记》(De Passione S. Joannis) 和《福马利亚安息记》(De Transitu b. Mariae)。↩︎
比较优西比乌，IV. 21、25。勒南说（第192页）：“Jamais peut-être le christianisme n’a plus écrit que durant le II^esiécle en Asie. La culture littéraire était extrémement répandue dans cette province; l’art d’écrire y était fort commun, et le christianisme en profitait. La littérature des Pères d l’Église commencait. Les siécles suivants ne dépassèrent pas ces premiers essais de l’éloquence chrétienne; mais, au point de vue de l’orthodoxie, les livres de ces Pères du II^esiécle offraient plus d’une pierre el’achoppement. La lecture en devint suspecte; on les copia de moins en moins, et ainsi presque tons ces beaux écrits disparurent, pour faire place aux écrivains classiques, postérieurs au concile de Nicée, écrivains plus corrects comme doctrine, mais, en général, bien moins originaux que ceux du II^esiècle.”——“基督教的著述，或许从来没有超过第二世纪在亚细亚的盛况。文学修养在这个行省极其普及；写作之艺十分常见，基督教也从中受益。教父文学正在兴起。此后各世纪并未超越这些基督教雄辩术的初步尝试；但从正统的观点来看，这些第二世纪教父的书中，绊脚石不止一块。阅读它们变得可疑；抄写的人越来越少，于是这些优美的著述几乎全都消失了，让位给尼西亚会议之后的经典作家；这些作家的教义较为正确，但总的说来，远不如第二世纪的作家富于独创性。”↩︎
其标题为：“哲学家米利都在安敦宁·凯撒 (Antonintus Caesar) 面前所作的演说；他向凯撒讲说［？］，使他认识上帝，又向他指明真理之路，并开始如下讲说。”埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)（载“Gött. Gel. Anz.”，1856年，第655页及后）和勒南（M. Aur.，第184页，注）认为，这并非护教辞，而是米利都的 περὶ ἀληθείας^*《论真理》，因为这个词出现得极其频繁。雅可比 (Jacobi)、奥托和哈纳克则将它归于另一位作者，可能来自叙利亚。↩︎
拉贝 (Labbé) 于1653年提到，克莱蒙学院 (Clermont College) 图书馆藏有一部题为《米利都圣经钥匙》(Melitonis Clavis Sanctae Scripturae) 的拉丁文著作。几经周折，终于在斯特拉斯堡及其他地方重新寻得，由枢机主教皮特拉 (Pitra) 刊于1855年的 Spicilegium Solesm.（第II、III卷）。但不幸的是，它根本不是米利都的 κλείς^* 的译本，而是一部中世纪的圣经奥秘释义词汇集，由贵格利一世 (Gregory I) 及其他拉丁教父的著作汇编而成。施泰茨 (Steitz) 在1857年《研究与评论》“Studien und Kritiken”，第584—596页中，已确凿证明这一点。勒南赞同这一判断（第181页，注）：“L’ouvrage latin que om Pitra a publié comme étant la Cle de Meliton, est une compilation de passages des Pères latins pouvant servir à l’explication allégorique des écritures qui figure pour la première fois dans la Bible de Théodulphe.”——“皮特拉以《米利都的钥匙》之名刊行的那部拉丁文著作，是汇集拉丁教父著作中可用于圣经寓意解释的段落而成的汇编，最早见于狄奥杜尔夫 (Théodulphe) 的《圣经》。”↩︎
Spicileg. Solesm.，第II卷，第LIX页。↩︎
这是提到他的古希腊作家所用的拼法。拉丁作家通常将他的名字拼作 Apollinaris 或 Apollinarius。有几位著名人物同名：1）传说中的圣亚波利拿里 (St. Apollinaris)，拉文纳 (Ravenna) 主教（50—78年？）；他跟随圣彼得从安提阿来到罗马，又受彼得差遣前往拉文纳，行神迹，殉道而死；六世纪建造的一座宏伟巴西利卡教堂即以他命名。见 Acta Sanct. Jul. V. 344。2）老亚波利拿里 (Apollinarus the Elder)，叙利亚老底嘉（不是弗吕家老底嘉）的长老，约生活于四世纪中叶，是一位出色的古典学者和诗人。3）小亚波利拿里 (Apollinaris the Younger)，前者之子，362至380年间任老底嘉主教；在尤利安 (Julian) 统治时期，他与父亲共同编写基督教经典，以取代异教经典，后来又创立了以他命名的基督论异端。见我在史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，I，第134页及下页所撰的条目。↩︎
《教会史》H. E. IV. 27；哲罗姆在 De Viris ill. 26中重述此事。《复活节编年史》Chron. Pasch. 保存了优西比乌未提及的一部著作的两段摘录。佛提乌提到他三部护教著作的抄本：πρὸς Ἕλληνας περὶ εὐσεβείας, περὶ ἀληθείας^*。后两者可能是同一部书，因为它们以 καί^* 相连。残篇见劳思 (Routh)，I，第159—174页。比较唐纳森，III，第243页；哈纳克，Texte，I，第232—239页；以及史密斯与韦斯，I，第132页。↩︎
见上文第214页及下页，以及《复活节编年史》Chron. Pasch. 1. 13。↩︎
De Vir. ill. 18；Com. in Ezech. 第36章。在后一处，哲罗姆提到爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 为希腊千禧年派的第一人，亚波利拿里为最后一人（“ut Graecos nominem, et primum extremumque conjugam, Iren. et Ap.”，即“若举希腊人为例，把最先与最后的连在一起，就是爱任纽和亚波利拿里”）；但这是明显的错误，因为巴拿巴和帕皮亚 (Papias) 在爱任纽之前已是千禧年派；美多和尼波斯 (Nepos) 则远在亚波利拿里之后。或许他指的是叙利亚老底嘉的亚波利拿里。↩︎
《圣徒行传》Acta Sanct. Febr. II. 4。见韦策尔与韦尔特 (Wetzer and Welte)，第2版，I，第1086页。↩︎
《教会史》H. E. V. 17。哲罗姆，De Vir. ill. 39。比较哈纳克，Texte，I，第278—282页；以及萨蒙 (Salmon)，载史密斯与韦斯，III，第916页。↩︎
《驳瓦伦廷派》Adv. Valent. 5。米提亚德 (Miltiades) 在这里被称为“ecclesiarum sophista”（众教会的智辩者）；这或许是褒称，相当于 rhetor（修辞家）或 philosophus（哲学家）（见奥托和萨蒙），也可能隐含责备之意（如哈纳克所认为的，“mit einem üblen Nebegeschmack”，即“带有一种不良意味”）。米提亚德与孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的关系十分不明，但他很可能是其反对者。↩︎
哈泽 (Hase) 恰当地称之为“eine oberflächlich witzige Belustigung über paradoxe Philosopheme”，即“以悖理的哲学命题为对象、浮浅而机巧的戏谑”。↩︎
优西比乌（IV. 22）明确称他为“一位从希伯来人中归信的人”；他对雅各的记述带有浓厚的犹太色彩，也证实了这一点；该记述全文引于第I卷，第276页及下页。他很可能来自巴勒斯坦。↩︎
Ὑπομνήματα^*，或 Συγγράμματα^*，共五卷。↩︎
藏于拔摩岛 (Patmos) 圣约翰修道院的图书馆。见察恩，前引书。↩︎
优西比乌，IV. 22。↩︎
同上，III. 32。鲍尔及其学派利用这段话，来反对那些警戒诺斯替异端的教牧书信及其他使徒书信；但这段话清楚地教导说，在这种异端于图拉真 (Trajan) 统治时公开显露以前，它早已暗中活动，最早可追溯到行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)。因此，赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 只是印证了《新约》中的有关暗示；这些暗示同样包含着一种区分，即谬误当前的萌芽与将来的发展并不相同。↩︎
ἐνθέου φιλοπονίας^*，优西比乌，IV. 23。↩︎
ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν^*。优西比乌，II. 23。↩︎
哈维 (Harvey) 根据所谓爱任纽熟悉希伯来文和叙利亚文《别西大译本》 (Peshito)，推断他是叙利亚人；但罗普斯 (Ropes) 否认这一前提，并为通常认为他是希腊人的观点辩护。另见卡斯帕里 (Caspari)，《洗礼信经史料》(Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymb) III，第343页及下页。↩︎
将坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 殉道的年代从166年改为155年，就必须相应调整其门徒爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的生平年表；况且爱任纽还说，约翰的《启示录》写于图密善统治末期（卒于96年），“几乎就在我们这一代”（σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς^*，Adv. Haer. V. 30, 3）。察恩 (Zahn)（载于赫尔佐格〔Herzog〕）断定他生于115年，利普修斯 (Lipsius)（载于史密斯与韦斯〔Smith and Wace〕）则定为130年或125年。多德韦尔 (Dodwell) 主张97年或98年；格拉贝 (Grabe) 主张108年；蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 和莱特福特主张120年；莱姆巴赫 (Leimbach)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和罗普斯 (Ropes) 主张126年；奥斯卡·冯·格布哈特 (Oscar von Gebhardt) 主张126—130年；哈维 (Harvey) 主张130年；马絮埃 (Massuet)、杜潘 (Dupin)、伯林格 (Böhringer)、克林 (Kling) 主张140年（实在太晚）；齐格勒 (Ziegler) 主张142—147年（不可能）。较晚的年代源于对坡旅甲年老这一说法（πάνυ γηραλέος^*）的误解；然而，正如察恩和莱特福特所指出的，这指的是他殉道时，而非他与爱任纽相识时的年纪；此外，也源于采用了错误的殉道年代（166年，而不是155年或156年）。爱任纽用来描述自己与坡旅甲相识时期的词语 πρώτη ἡλικία^*，即“最初的年龄”（III. 3, § 4；比较优西比乌〔Eusebius〕，H. E. IV. 14），其范围可以从童年延伸到青年及成年初期；因为爱任纽把人生划分为五个阶段（Adv. Haer. I. 22, § 4；24, § 4——infans, parvullus, puer, juvenis, senior，即婴儿、幼儿、男童、青年、长者），并将三十岁包括在青年期内，称基督受洗时为 juvenis（青年）。因此，察恩和利普修斯断言，爱任纽与坡旅甲交往时的 πρώτη ἡλικία^*，不是童年，而是成年初期。察恩说：“Als junger Mann, etwa zwischen dem 18. und 35. Lebensjahre, will Ir. sich des Umqangs mit Pol erfreut haben.”（爱任纽自称是在青年时期，约十八至三十五岁之间，有幸与坡旅甲交往。）另一线索见于爱任纽致弗洛里努斯 (Florinus) 的信；他在信中提醒对方，他们年轻时曾在亚细亚沿海地区一同认识坡旅甲，当时弗洛里努斯供职于“皇廷”（αὐλὴ βασιλική^*）。莱特福特推测，这里是预先使用后来的称号，指安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 于公元136年出任小亚细亚行省总督时的官邸，那是在他登上帝位的两年前（瓦丁顿〔Waddington〕，Fastes des provinces Asiatiques，第714页）。但察恩重申多德韦尔那较为自然的解释，认为这里指哈德良 (Hadrian) 皇帝的宫廷；他在122至130年间曾两次以皇帝身份巡幸小亚细亚。↩︎
见上文§ 20，第55页及下页。↩︎
或在逼迫期间，或在逼迫之后。优西比乌，V. S.；哲罗姆，De Vir. ill，第35章。↩︎
“关于他的骸骨于1562年被加尔文派信徒掘出并抛在街上的故事，早已得到充分驳斥。”《大英百科全书》(Encycl. Brit.)，第九版，XIII，第273页。↩︎
他向友人表示歉意的那段话本身，便足以证明这一点（Adv. Haer.，序言，§ 3）：“我住在凯尔特人 (Celts) 中间（ἐν Κελτοῖς^*），大半习惯于使用一种蛮族方言（βάρβαρον διάλεκτον^*）；你不会要求我具备未曾学过的言辞技巧、未曾操练的写作能力，或我一无所知的文采与说服力。但我凭爱心，朴实、真实、以自己的方式（ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς^*）写给你的，你也会凭爱心接纳；至于我寄给你的那些思想，可以说只是种子和根本原理（σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχάς^*），你自己既比我更有能力，就会加以阐发；又凭你广博的理解，把我略为触及的各点充分展开，好将我软弱中所说的话，有力地陈明在你的同伴面前。”哲罗姆赞扬爱任纽的文体，称之为“doctissmus et eloquentissimus”（极其博学，极其雄辩）；马絮埃（Diss. II. § 51）又补充说，他的“希腊文原文，就现存部分而言，优雅、精致而庄重”。↩︎
哈维主张他还精通希伯来文和叙利亚文；但这一点有争议。↩︎
莱特福特主教（《当代评论》〔Contemp. Rev.〕，1875年5月，第827页）说，爱任纽“在一切最重要的方面，都符合此后基督教会一向认可的标准”。勒南（第341页）称他为“le modèle de l’homme ecclésiastique accompli”（完美教会人士的典范）。↩︎
关于他所引经文的长篇目录，见施蒂伦 (Stieren)，I，第996—1005页，以及有关《新约》正典的著作。↩︎
比较§ 62，第217页及下页。↩︎
Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως^*（《提摩太前书》6:20），即《驳斥并推翻那冒称为知识的学说》；自哲罗姆以来，引用时采用较简短的书名：《驳异端》(Adversus Haereses，πρὸς αἱρέσεις^*)。这部著作的希腊文原本，连同赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 的五卷著作，在十六世纪仍然存在，或许尚能重新发现。见察恩发表于布里格尔 (Brieger)《教会史杂志》(Zeitschrift für K. Gesch.) 1877年，第288—291页的文章。但迄今我们只有希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus)（Philosophumena）、优西比乌、狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)，尤其是埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)（Haer. XXXI，第9—33章）所保存的片段。不过，我们拥有全书的一种拉丁文译本；其文字粗陋，亦步亦趋地逐字翻译，充斥希腊语式，却正因此而极有价值。这一拉丁文译本尚存三部抄本，最古老的是十或十一世纪的克拉罗蒙塔努斯抄本 (Codex Claromontanus)。它与阿伦德尔抄本 (Arundel MS.) 现均藏于英国（说明及摹真图见哈维版序言，I，第viii页及后）。此外，我们现有叙利亚文译本残篇，出自大英博物馆的尼特里亚抄本 (Nitrian MSS.)；又有亚美尼亚文译本残篇，由皮特拉 (Pitra) 刊于其 Spicilegium Solesmense 第I卷（1852年）。这两种残篇都收入哈维版，第II卷，第431—469页。它们与拉丁文译本极为吻合。H. W. J. 蒂尔施 (H. W. J. Thiersch) 曾尝试依据拉丁文还原希腊文，以求更好地理解原文；他所处理的是第三卷前四章（Stud. u. Kritiken，1842年）。泽姆勒 (Semler) 对本书真实性的质疑，早已被 Chr. G. F. 瓦尔希 (Chr. G. F. Walch)（De authentia libiorum Irenaei，1774年）彻底驳倒，因此默勒 (Möhler) 和施蒂伦本可不必再费这番工夫。↩︎
1. 3, 3提到埃留特鲁斯 (Eleutherus) 当时正居罗马主教之位。利普修斯将本书写作年代定于公元180至185年间，哈维则定于182至188年间（I. CLVIII）。
↩︎
关于异端史的史料，尤应参阅第443页所引利普修斯和哈纳克 (Harnack) 的著作，以及哈维第I卷中的《初步论述》。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) III. 7, § 2。↩︎
Περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν^*，即《论独一统治，或论上帝并非恶的创造者》。优西比乌，H. E. V. 20；比较第15章。↩︎
莱姆巴赫和莱特福特认为这封信是爱任纽最早的著作之一，但利普修斯（第263页）将其定于公元190年左右或以后，依据是爱任纽致罗马的维克托 (Victor，190—202年) 的一封信之叙利亚文残篇；其中谈到“弗洛里努斯，一位长老，瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 谬论的党徒，他出版了一本可憎的书”。该残篇见哈维，II，第457页。优西比乌没有提及这样一封信，但也没有充分理由怀疑它的真实性。↩︎
Περὶ ὀγδοάδος^*，即《论八元体》。优西比乌，V. 20。↩︎
Περὶ σχίσματος^*，即《论分裂》。优西比乌亦在上引处（l. c.）提及。比较V. 14；伪德尔图良 (Pseudo-Tertullian)，Adv. Haer. 22；以及哈维，II，第456页所载的叙利亚文残篇；又见利普修斯对其主题及年代的考辨，第264页及下页。↩︎
《教会史》(H. E.) V. 26。↩︎
βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων^*，即《杂论集》。哈维和利普修斯认为，这是根据各种经文所作的讲道集。↩︎
优西比乌，H. E. V. 1、2；亦见劳思 (Routh) 的 Reliquiae S. I，第295页及后，附有注释。此文已有多种译本。关于这一文献，比较唐纳森 (Donaldson) 的详尽讨论，III，第250—2S6页；以及勒南引人注目的评价（l. c.，第340页）：他称之为“un des morceaux les plus extraordinaires que possède aucune litterature”（任何文学中最非凡的篇章之一），又称之为“la perle de la litterature chrétienne au II^esiecle.”（二世纪基督教文学的明珠）。他认为作者是爱任纽；哈维否认它出自爱任纽之手；唐纳森则对作者问题存疑。↩︎
哈维（I. clxxii）全都接受，认为它们“具备良好的外证，而证明其真实性的内证，也远比人们通常能从如此简短的摘录中期待得到的更为有力”。↩︎
γνῶσις^* ἀληθινή^*，即“真知识”，或许就是优西比乌以 περὶ τῆς ἐπιστήμης^*（《论知识》）为题提及的同一部论著。↩︎
已在§ 69，第242页讨论。↩︎
利普修斯（第266页）认为，这是四篇残篇中唯一无疑真实的一篇。↩︎
见§ 157，第609页，以及施蒂伦版I，第889页。↩︎
卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 博士（III，第351页，注153）认为，希波吕托斯很可能在年纪极轻时就从东方来到罗马，在那里成长，成为罗马教会中希腊语群体的一员，后来又成为该群体的教职人员。利普修斯（第40页及后）推测，希波吕托斯是小亚细亚人，170年时曾在那里从学于爱任纽。但这一说法遭到哈纳克和卡斯帕里（第409页）的驳斥。↩︎
他称之为 schisma Novati（诺瓦图的分裂），而非 Novatiani（诺瓦atian的）。这两个名字时常被混淆，尤其是在包括优西比乌在内的希腊文作家笔下。↩︎
Ultima vox autdita senis venerabilis haec est.

"Hi rapiant artus, tu rape, Christe, animam."

这位可敬老者最后被人听见的话是：

“任他们夺去肢体；基督啊，求你接去灵魂。”↩︎
《殉道者冠冕之书》(Peristephanon Liber) 第xi首。普拉默 (Plummer) 在德林格 (Döllinger) 一书的附录C，第345—351页，依据德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 的文本（1860年）刊出了全诗（246行）。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 指责普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) 混淆了三个不同的希波吕托斯，并将那位身为罗马军官、卫士及圣劳伦斯 (St. Lawrence) 门徒的希波吕托斯的殉道事迹，移到同名的主教身上。德林格严厉剖析了普鲁登修斯的传说，认为它源于一幅殉道者被马匹撕裂的图画；这幅画或许曾在殉道者圣劳伦斯的教堂附近（第58页）。↩︎
最早作此记载的是《逾越节编年史》(Paschal Chronicle) 和阿纳斯塔修斯 (Anastasius)。↩︎
萨蒙 (Salmon) 说：“德·拉加德 (De Lagarde) 版所收集的残篇，大多数只题为‘希波吕托斯的’，或‘主教兼殉道者希波吕托斯的’，但约有二十篇称他为‘罗马主教’，只有三篇将他置于别处。能够指名的最早如此称呼他的作者，是四世纪的阿波利纳里 (Apollinaris)……希波吕托斯在希腊教会的月录中，同样以教皇及罗马主教的身份出现；叙利亚、科普特和阿比西尼亚诸教会也以同一称号尊崇他。”有关依据见德林格。↩︎
将年代定得如此早，其理由是：（1）雕像的艺术风格，早于始自君士坦丁 (Constantine) 时代的艺术衰落。（2）逾越节周期表准确列出217—223年的逾越节满月日期，但随后八年的日期却是错误的，以致此后的表格已无用处，因此它必定是在222年之后不久编写的。（3）铭文使用希腊文，而这种语言在四世纪的罗马几乎消失，并让位于拉丁文，后者成为罗马教会的语言。萨蒙博士将雕像的树立年代定于235年，即希波吕托斯被放逐后不久。纽约协和神学院 (Union Theol. Seminary) 图书馆藏有一件希波吕托斯雕像的翻模，是经派珀 (Piper) 教授之手从柏林取得的。↩︎
Περὶ τοῦ παντός^*，即《论宇宙》。见注释中的著作目录。↩︎
诚然，雕像的座椅上没有提及《哲学论》(Philosophumena)，而它也不可能隐含在 Πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*（《致希腊人》）这一标题之下，因为该标题以 καί^* 与反对柏拉图 (Plato) 的著作相连。但这种沉默很容易解释：一部分是由于这部书较为罕见，一部分是由于它对两位罗马教皇的反对冒犯了人。↩︎
希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 的作者身份，已由本生 (Bunsen)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、雅可比 (Jacobi)、德林格 (Döllinger)、敦克尔 (Duncker)、施奈德温 (Schneidewin)、卡斯帕里 (Caspari)、米尔曼 (Milman)、罗伯逊 (Robertson)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、普卢默 (Plummer) 和萨蒙 (Salmon) 证明或承认。纽曼 (Newman) 枢机主教出于教义上的理由予以否认，却未提出解决办法。仅有的其他候选作者是俄利根 (Origen，初版编者米勒 Miller 及勒诺尔芒 Le Normant 持此说) 和该犹 (Cajus，鲍尔 Baur 与克鲁斯 Cruice 持此说，后者在该犹 Caius 与德尔图良 Tertullian 之间犹疑不定)。俄利根不在考虑之列，因为文体与神学均不相同，而且他既非主教，也未定居罗马，只是短暂到访过那里（约211年，泽菲里努斯 Zephyrinus 任内）。将作品归于该犹的唯一依据，是佛提乌 (Photius) 根据其手稿中的一条旁注所作的说明，而他自己也对此存疑：该犹写过一部 περὶ τοῦ παντός^*，以及一部名为《迷宫》(The Labyrinth) 的反异端著作；他是“罗马的一位长老”，也有人称他为“外邦人的主教”。但该犹反对千禧年说，也反对孟他努主义 (Montanism)；希波吕托斯却很可能像爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 一样赞同千禧年说，承认《启示录》为约翰所著，并且同情孟他努派在纪律上的严峻立场，尽管他也曾温和地反对他们。见德林格，前引书，英译本，第250页及后；福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)，前引书，第60—71页；华兹华斯，前引书，第16—28页。另有两位作者也曾被提名为《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 的作者，却毫无可能：一位是克鲁斯神父所提的德尔图良，另一位是耶稣会士托尔夸蒂·阿尔梅利尼 (Torquati Armellini) 在论文《论新近以俄利根之名及〈哲学论〉之题刊行的古代驳异端书》(De priscarefutatione haereseon Origenis nomine ac philosophumenon tituto recens vulgata, Rom., 1862) 中所提的分裂派人物诺瓦atian (Novatian)（转引自普卢默，第354页）。↩︎
这一思想借自爱任纽。↩︎
此处的读法有争议。↩︎
这段话晦涩难明：ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προσέταξε^*。华兹华斯译为：“他吩咐我们以愿望除去人身上的罪”；麦克马洪 (Macmahon) 译为：“他已作出安排，要洗去人类的罪。”本生则将读法改为：“因为基督就是万有之神所命定、要洗去人类罪孽的那一位。”希波吕托斯所指的，很可能是那吩咐人悔改并受洗、使罪得赦的命令。↩︎
βιβλιδάριον^*。βιβλίς^* 或 βίβλος^* 较常见的指小形式是 βιβλίδιον^*。↩︎
利普修斯 (Lipsius) 在其《伊皮法纽史料考辨》(Quellenkrilik des Epiphanios) 中，利用伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)、菲拉斯特 (Philaster) 和伪德尔图良 (Pseudo-Tertullian) 的反异端著作中未注明出处的引文，部分重构了这部著作，取得了非凡的成就。↩︎
法布里修斯 (Fabricius，T., 235)、尼安德 (Neander，英译本，I. 682) 和利普修斯均曾提出此说。此书在手稿中的标题为“希波吕托斯反对某诺埃图异端的讲道”——ὁμιλία Ἱππολ. εἰς αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινος^*；最初由福修斯 (Vossius) 以拉丁文刊印，随后法布里修斯根据梵蒂冈一份手稿刊出了希腊文本（第II卷，第5—20页；拉丁文本见第I卷，第235—244页），P. 德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 也刊出了希腊文本（Hippol. Opera Gr.，第43—57页）。伊皮法纽曾机械地利用它。其开篇说：“另有一些人，成了某诺埃图 (Noëtus) 的门徒，正暗中引进另一种教义。”这表明前面还有其他章节。反对将二者认作同一著作的唯一理由，是佛提乌将那部驳斥三十二种异端的完整著作称为一本小书（βιβλιδάριον^*）。因此，利普修斯提出，这并非 σύνταγμα^* 本身，而只是其内容提要，正如反异端著作中常常附有的那一种。德林格（第191页及后）指出，《反诺埃图》与《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 的相应部分在教义上是一致的，并认为二者在三位一体以及逻各斯 (Logos) 的发展问题上都属异端：它们将逻各斯视为一位从属的神圣位格，在世界受造以前，因父旨意的行动而开始存在；这一教义后来成为阿里乌主义 (Arianism) 的主要支柱之一。德林格认为，这正是希波吕托斯被指控部分赞同瓦伦廷主义 (Valentinianism) 的缘由，因为他关于逻各斯起源的教义，与诺斯替派的流溢说混淆了。↩︎
福尔克马尔亦持此说（前引书，第165页）：“Der Cod. Vatic. ’Contra Noëtum’ ist der Schluss nicht jener kürzeren Häreseologie, sondern einer anderen, von Epiphanius noch vorgefundenen Schrift desselben Hippolyt, wie es scheint, gegen alle Monarchianer”（梵蒂冈抄本《反诺埃图》并非那部较简短的异端论著的结尾，而是同一位希波吕托斯另一部著作的结尾；伊皮法纽当时尚能见到此书，看来它是针对所有神格唯一论者的）。卡斯帕里（III. 400及下页）也赞同这一见解。↩︎
Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας^*（或 οὐσίας^*，希波吕托斯自己所给的书名如此，见《哲学论》Philos. X. 32，D. 与 Schn. 编本），或 Περὶ τοῦ παντός^*（希波吕托斯雕像上的题名）。希腊文和拉丁文见法布里修斯，I. 220—222。希腊文见 P. 德·拉加德，第68—73页。这部书可说是一种基督教的宇宙起源论，用以抗衡柏拉图 (Plato) 的《蒂迈欧篇》(Timaeus)。↩︎
比较德林格，第330页及后。他将希波吕托斯关于中间状态的观点，与其千禧年说联系起来；按照这种学说，义人的灵魂在复活之前，绝不可能进入天国并得享荣福直观。另一方面，华兹华斯否认希波吕托斯相信千禧年和“罗马教的炼狱教义”，并赞同他的阴间观，认为它与英国国教的安葬礼文，以及布尔 (Bull) 主教论亡魂状态的讲道一致。见 Hippol.，第210—216页。他还在附录A，第306—308页，根据博德利图书馆 (Bodleian library) 的一份手稿，为《论宇宙》(On the Universe) 的残篇补入了一段文字。↩︎
Σμικρὸς Λαβύρινθος^*（《小迷宫》；狄奥多勒 Theodoret，Haer. Fa b. II. 5），或 σπούδασμα κατὰ τῆς Ἀρτέμωνος αἱρέσεως^*（《反阿尔特蒙异端论》；优西比乌 Eusebius，H. E. V. 28）。↩︎
卡斯帕里，III. 404及下页，认为这两部书是同一部。↩︎
Περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις^*（《论恩赐的使徒传统》）。见于希波吕托斯雕像。↩︎
Περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ ἀντιχρίστου^*（《论我们的救主耶稣基督与敌基督》），见法布里修斯，I. 4—36（希腊文及拉丁文），以及 P. 德·拉加德，第1—36页（仅希腊文）。↩︎
列于哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的目录中，埃德萨的雅各 (Jacob of Edessa) 和辛凯卢斯 (Syncellus) 也曾提及。取自一部阿拉伯文《启示录》串珠注释（Catena）的残篇，见拉加德的 Anal. Syr.，附录，第24—27页。见萨蒙在史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace) 合编著作中的条目，III. 105。↩︎
见德林格，英译本，第330页及后。↩︎
这条奇特的资料承蒙萨蒙博士提供；他引据本森 (Benson) 载于《古典与圣经语文学杂志》(Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology) 的文章，I. 190。↩︎
不过，这名字很常见；新约提到四位该犹（Caii；《使徒行传》19:29；20:4；《罗马书》16:24；《哥林多前书》1:14；《约翰三书》1节），优西比乌则提到五位。↩︎
ἀνὴρ ἐκκλησιαστικός^* 和 λογιώτατος^*（II. 25及VT. 20）。前一个词不一定意味着担任某种职分；瓦莱修斯 (Valesius) 将它译为 vir catholicus（大公信仰之士），海尼兴 (Heinichen，Euseb. Com. III. 64) 则译为 ein rechtgläubiger Schriftsteller（一位信仰正统的作家）。↩︎
无疑就是德尔图良在 Adv. Val. 5 中称赞的“Proculus noster”（我们的普罗库卢斯）。比较哲罗姆（第59章）：“Proculum Montani sectatorem”（孟他努的追随者普罗库卢斯）。他的追随者信奉三位一体；孟他努派的另一支则信奉神格唯一论。↩︎
见上文§ 183，第762页及下页。↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 在《语文学杂志》(Journal of Philology)，I. 98，以及萨蒙，前引书，第386页，均持此说。↩︎
有关该文献及其作者身份的讨论，见劳思 (Routh)，I. 398及后；萨蒙在史密斯与韦斯合编著作中的条目，III. 1000及后；以及各种论正典的著作。讨论这一问题的作者，包括萨蒙在内，大多数认为该残篇译自希腊文原本，因为直到泽菲里努斯和希波吕托斯的时代，罗马教会的其他文献全都是希腊文的。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和 P. 德·拉加德曾尝试将它回译为希腊文。但黑塞 (Hesse，《穆拉多利残篇》Das Murator. Fragment，Giessen，1873，第25—39页) 和卡斯帕里（Quellen，III. 410及下页）则坚称拉丁文就是原文，因为回译为希腊文并未澄清那些晦涩之处。这些不合规范的拉丁文用法，在其他罗马作家中也有出现。不过，卡斯帕里认为，此文是一位居住罗马的非洲人，根据罗马教会一份更早的希腊文文献写成的。他视之为最古老的拉丁文教会文献（“das älteste in lateinischer Sprache geschriebene originale kirchliche Schriftstück”，即“以拉丁文写成的最古老的原创教会文献”）。↩︎
优西比乌（V. 10；VI. 3, 6）称它为 τὸ τῆς κατηχήσεως διδασκαλεῖον^*（教理讲授学校）和 διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων^*（圣言学校）。索佐门 (Sozomen，III. 15) 称之为 τὸ ἱερὸν διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν μαθημάτων^*（神圣学问的圣学校）；哲罗姆（Catal. 38）和鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus，H. E. II. 7) 则称之为 ecclesiastica schola（教会学校）。↩︎
革利免 (Clemens) 称他为“西西里的蜜蜂”（Σικελικὴ μέλιττα^*，或许是指他出身于西西里）。哲罗姆（Catal. 36）论他说：“Hujus multi quidem in S. Scripturam exstant commentarii sed magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit.”（他虽有许多圣经注释存世，但他藉口头教导给众教会带来的益处更大。）关于他，比较雷德彭宁 (Redepenning) 的《俄利根》(Origenes)，I. 63及后，以及默勒 (Möhler) 载于赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 百科全书第2版的条目，XI. 182。劳思收集了潘代努 (Pantaenus) 的两篇简短遗文，并附有博学的注释，见 Rel. S. I. 375—383。↩︎
《以赛亚书》7:9，据七十士译本 (LXX)：ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε, οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε^*（你们若是不信，就必不能明白）。↩︎
453 Κλήμης^*。奇怪的是，称为弗拉维乌斯 (Flavius) 的竟是他，而不是那位与他同名、声望卓著的罗马人。他或许是一名获释奴隶的后裔；那奴隶原属提图斯·弗拉维乌斯·革利免 (Titus Flavius Clemens)。后者是韦斯帕芗 (Vespasian) 皇帝的侄子、95年的执政官，曾与妻子多米提拉 (Domitilla) 一同，被他的堂弟图密善 (Domitian) 皇帝突然逮捕，并以“无神论”、即信奉基督教的罪名定罪。↩︎
ἀποκάθαρσις^*、μύησις^* 和 ἐποπτεία^*，即洁净、入门、观见。↩︎
Λόγος προτρεπτικός πρὸς Ἕλληνας^*，Cohortatio ad Graecos，或 ad Gentes（《劝希腊人书》，或《劝外邦人书》）。↩︎
Παιδαγωγός^*（《导师》）。这一部分末尾收有那首颂赞基督的诗歌。↩︎
Στρωματεῖς^*，Stromata（《杂学》），意为一幅幅挂毯；挂毯以巧妙的织法和多样的色彩，恰当地描绘出这种杂纂著作的面貌。↩︎
Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος^*，Quis dives salvus 或 salvetur?（《哪个财主能得救？》），是对主在《马可福音》10:17及后所说之话的极佳注释。对于亚历山大 (Alexandria) 这样的富庶城市，或任何别的城市和时代，尤其是我们这个要求人们为文教与慈善事业尽量慷慨解囊的时代，这都是极切实的题目。见波特 (Potter) 编本，II. 935—961（附拉丁文译本）。此书以圣约翰与青年强盗的优美故事作结，优西比乌将其收入了自己的《教会史》(Church History，III. 23)。↩︎
Ὑποτυπώσεις^*，Adumbrationes、Outlines（《纲要》），即旧约与新约圣经内容的简明概览。关于这些残篇的分析，见韦斯科特 (Westcott) 在史密斯与韦斯合编著作中的条目，III. 563及下页，以及察恩 (Zahn)，前引书，第64—103页。↩︎
ὕμνος τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ^*（《救主基督颂》），以抑抑扬格写成。见§ 66，第230页。附于《导师》(Tutor) 的另一首诗歌，以三音步抑扬格写成，颂赞 παιδαγωγός^*（导师），其年代较晚。↩︎
Ὠριγένης^*，Origenes（俄利根），很可能源于埃及神祇俄尔 (Or) 或荷鲁斯 (Horus) 的名字（如 Phoebigena 源于 Phœbus，Diogenes 源于 Zeus）。见于埃 (Huetius)，I. 1, 2；雷德彭宁，I. 421及下页。↩︎
Ἀδαμάντιος^*（亦称 Χαλκέντερος^*）。哲罗姆认为，这个称号表示他孜孜不倦的勤奋；佛提乌则认为，它表示他的论证具有无可驳倒的力量。见雷德彭宁，I. 430。↩︎
默勒 (Möller，前引书，第92页) 等人持此说。但这不过是根据俄利根的观点作出的推论。据我所知，没有关于他受洗的记载。↩︎
Λεωνίδης^*，优西比乌，VI. 1。尼安德与吉泽勒采用此名。其他人则将名字拼作 Leonidas（雷德彭宁与默勒）。↩︎
见德林格，《希波吕托斯与卡利斯图斯》(Hippolytus and Callistus)，第236页及后（普卢默译本）。↩︎
这一事实以优西比乌（VI. 8）的见证为依据，他对俄利根的情况十分了解；恩格尔哈特 (Engelhardt)、雷德彭宁和尼安德也曾为此辩护，反驳鲍尔和施尼策 (Schnitzer) 毫无根据的怀疑。俄利根对《马太福音》该段经文的注释，与其说是否定，毋宁说是支持这一事实。另见默勒（第93页）。↩︎
耶稣会士斯蒂芬·比内 (Stephen Binet) 写过一本小书，《论俄利根的得救》(De salute Origenis，Par. 1629)。书中讨论这一问题的主要作者，就俄利根是否得救展开辩论；巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 提议下到阴间，以查明真相；最后，对这场异端审判的终审，还是明智地交托给上帝隐秘的旨意。关于此书，见贝尔 (Bayle) 的介绍，Diction.，“Origene”条，Tom. III. 541，注1。韦斯科特说（前引书），俄利根“最严重的错误，是试图解决那些无法解决的问题”。↩︎
并非在553年的第五次大公会议上，尽管人们常因混淆而作此断言。见赫费勒 (Hefele)，《大公会议史》(Conciliengesch.)，第II卷，第790页及后、第859页及后。不过，默勒 (Möller) 在赫尔措格 (Herzog)² XI. 113中，再次为诺里斯 (Noris) 和巴莱里尼 (Ballerini) 所持的另一种见解辩护。十五条咒诅文见曼西 (Mansi)，Conc. IX. 534。↩︎
于埃 (Huetius) 和雷德彭宁 (Redepenning，I. 296–324)，以及迪斯特尔 (Diestel)，《基督教会中的旧约史》(Gesch. des A. T in der christl. Kirche)，1869年，第36页及下页、第53页及下页，都充分讨论了他的释经方法及其贡献。↩︎
Τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ^*，也用单数形式 τὸ ἑξαπλοῦν^*，Hexaplum（见于后世作者，意为“六栏本”）。比较弗里切 (Fritzsche) 在赫尔措格² I. 285中的论述。↩︎
称为 Quinta（第五本，εʹ^*）、Sexta（第六本，ϛʹ^*）和 Septima（第七本，ζʹ^*）。这样总共应有九栏，但从未出现过 Enneapla（九栏本）这一名称。Octapla（八栏本）和 Heptapla^* 偶有使用，但极为罕见。以下《哈巴谷书》2:4的经文（引于《罗马书》1:17），在所有各栏中都完整保存：

Τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν^*

Τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν Ἑλληνικοῖς γράμμασιν^*

Ἀκύλας^*

Σύμμαχος^*

Οἱ Οʹ^* (LXX)

Θεοδοτίων^*

Εʹ^*

Ϛʹ^*.

Ζʹ^*.

וצדיק באמונתו יחיה^*

ουσαδικ βημουναθω ιεϊε^*.

καὶ δίκαιος ἐν πίστει αὐτοῦ ζήσεται^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστεως μοῦ ζήσεται^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει^*.

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει ζήσει^*.↩︎
τὰ τετραπλᾶ^*，或 τετραπλοῦν^*，或 τὸ τετρασέλιδον^*，亦称 Tetrapla、Tetraplum（四栏本）。↩︎
Σημειώσεις^*、σχόλια^*，即 scholia（简注）。↩︎
Τόμοι^*，volumina（卷册），也称 commentarii（注释）。↩︎
Ὁμιλίαι^*.↩︎
比较§32，第89页及后。W. 塞尔温 (W. Selwyn) 编有单行本：《俄利根〈驳塞尔苏斯〉》(Origenis Contra Celsum libri) I–IV，伦敦 (Lond.)，1877年。克龙比 (Crombie) 的英译本出版于1868年。凯姆 (Keim) 根据俄利根的引文重构了塞尔苏斯的著作：《塞尔苏斯的真道》(Celsus’ Wahres Wort)，苏黎世 (Zürich)，1873年。↩︎
Περὶ ἀρχῶν^*（《论原理》）。鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus) 的译本，以及另一种与之竞争、较为准确的译本的若干残篇，见德拉吕 (Delarue)，I. 42–195。雷德彭宁编有单行本，Origenes de Princip.，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1836年。另比较K. F. 施尼策 (K. F. Schnitzer)，《俄利根论基督教的基本教义：一次复原尝试》(Orig. über die Grundlehren des Christenthums, ein Wiederherstellungsversuch)，斯图加特 (Stuttgart)，1836年。鲁菲努斯自己承认曾改动或删去数页，借口说俄利根的著作中没有哪一部比此书更遭异端篡改。蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont) 说得好：鲁菲努斯原可不必费力改动，因为我们关心他的见解，远不及关心原作者的见解。↩︎
Περὶ εὐχῆς^*，De Oratione（《论祷告》）。德拉吕，I. 195–272。单行本于1635年在牛津 (Oxf.) 出版，附拉丁文译本。俄利根与德尔图良、居普良 (Cyprian) 一样，省略了主祷文的颂荣，因为他所用的抄本中没有这段话。这是证明该段乃后来由礼仪惯例增入的最有力的反面证据之一。↩︎
Εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικὸς λόγος^*，或 Περὶ μαρτυρίου^*，De Martyrio（《论殉道》）。韦特施泰因 (Wetstein) 于1574年在巴塞尔 (Basel) 首次出版；亦见德拉吕，I. 273–310，附拉丁文译本及注释。↩︎
热内布拉尔 (Genebrardus) 于1574年在巴黎首次以拉丁文出版；德拉吕又以希腊文和拉丁文出版，不过省略了那些已在别处适当位置收录的摘录。↩︎
《依启示所作的信仰陈述》(Ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν^*) 被吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 和鲍尔斥为伪作，哈恩 (Hahn)、卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 和吕塞尔 (Ryssel) 则为其真实性辩护。此文见曼西，Conc. I. 1030；哈恩，《古代教会信经汇编》(Bibl. der Symbole der alten Kirche)，第2版，第183页；以及卡斯帕里，第10–17页，后者载有希腊文和两种拉丁文译本，并附注释。↩︎
《详述信仰》(κατὰ μέρος πίστις^*，即逐项或详细阐述的信仰，而非仅阐述一部分) 的希腊文原文由安杰洛·迈 (Angelo Mai) 首次刊布，见 Scriptorum Vet. Nova Collectio，VII. 170–176。叙利亚文译本见P. 德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 编的 Analecta Syriaca，第31–42页。见卡斯帕里，前引书，第65–116页，他确凿地证明了这份文献出自亚波里拿留派 (Apollinarian)。归于贵格利 (Gregory) 名下的第三篇三位一体信仰告白，διάλεξις πρὸς Αἰλιανόν^*，已经失传。↩︎
最佳单行本为本格尔 (Bengel) 所编，斯图加特，1722年。亦收入德拉吕所编俄利根著作第4卷，以及米涅 (Migne)，Patr. Gr. X，第1049–1104栏。英译本见《尼西亚前教父文库》(Ante-Nic. Lib.)，XX. 36–80。↩︎
见米涅，第X卷，第987–1018栏。↩︎
最早是优西比乌 (Eusebius) 在第VII卷序言 (Proœem.) 中这样称呼他：ὁ μέγας Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος^*（亚历山大的伟大主教狄奥尼修）。亚他那修 (Athanasius，De Seut. Dion. 6) 称他为“大公教会的教师”（τῆς καθολ.^* ἐκκλησία^*" διδάσκαλος^*）。↩︎
265年，他应邀出席安提阿会议 (Synod of Antioch)，却因年老体弱而辞谢。优西比乌，VII. 27。↩︎
保存于优西比乌，VII. 22。↩︎
见优西比乌，VII. 25。狄奥尼修 (Dionysius) 在比较的结尾，赞扬福音书纯正的希腊文，并将其与《启示录》的“粗鄙习语和语法错误”相对照；然而，福音书无论在贯注全书的精神上，还是在行文结构上，都彻头彻尾是希伯来式的。不过，他承认《启示录》的作者“看见了启示，领受了知识和预言”，并声明无意贬低此书，只是无法想象它与第四福音书出于同一支笔。他预示了施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 批判学派的理论：该派维护福音书出于约翰，却放弃《启示录》出于约翰的主张；图宾根 (Tübingen) 批判学派和勒南的立场则恰好相反。关于这一问题，见第I卷，第716页及下页。↩︎
苏伊达斯 (Suidas) 称他为 Sextus Africanus（塞克斯图斯·阿非利加努斯）。优西比乌仅称他为 Ἀφρικανός^*。↩︎
并非《路加福音》24:16所记、距耶路撒冷仅六十斯他迪亚 (stadia) 的以马忤斯 (Emmaus)，而是另一座以马忤斯，距耶路撒冷176斯他迪亚（22罗马里）。↩︎
十二世纪末以来的两位叙利亚作者巴尔萨利比 (Barsalibi) 和埃贝德耶苏 (Ebedjesu) 称他为埃德萨 (Edessa) 主教；但更早的作者对此称号一无所知，俄利根则称他为“弟兄”。↩︎
《尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯致阿里斯提德书信的批判研究与复原》(Der Brief des Jul. Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt)。哈勒 (Halle)，1877年。↩︎
《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.) VI. 15、26、35；《编年史》(Chron.)，亚伯拉罕纪年2250、2265年条。↩︎
见劳思 (Routh)，Reliquiae Sacre III. 407–422。凯夫 (Cave) 将狄奥格诺斯图斯 (Theognostus) 的年代置于皮耶里乌斯 (Pierius) 之后，约公元228年，但劳思纠正了他（第408页）。↩︎
优西比乌，VII. 32近末处；哲罗姆，D, Vir. ill. 76；Praef. in Hos.；佛提乌 (Photius)，Cod. 118、119。优西比乌与皮耶里乌斯有亲身交往，说他以自愿贫穷、哲学知识，以及在公众聚会中讲解圣经的才干而享有盛名。哲罗姆称他为“Origenes junior”（小俄利根），并提到他有一篇论何西阿预言的长篇著述。佛提乌称他为 Παμφίλου τοῦ μάρτυρος ὑφηγητής^*（殉道者潘菲卢的教师）。见劳思，Rel. S. III. 425–431。↩︎
“哲罗姆说（De Vir. ill. 75）：Pamphilus ... tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descrpserit, quae usque hodie in Caesriensi bibliotheca habentur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas viginti quinque ἐξηγήσεων^* Origenis volumina manu ejus exarata reperi, quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Craesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est, unam epistolam habere martyris, quanto magis tot millia versuum quae mihi videtur sui sanguinis signasse vestigiis.（潘菲卢……对神圣文库怀有如此炽烈的爱，以致亲手抄写了俄利根的大部分著作，这些抄本至今仍存于凯撒利亚图书馆。我还发现了他亲手抄录的俄利根论十二先知书的二十五卷注释。我满心欢喜地珍爱并保存这些书卷，仿佛自己拥有克罗伊索斯的财富。若拥有殉道者的一封书信就足以令人欣喜，那么，拥有这成千上万行文字，又该何等欢喜！在我看来，他仿佛用自己的血迹为这些文字盖了印。）”↩︎
见劳思，Rel. S.，第III卷，第491–512页，及第IV卷，第339–392页；亦见德拉吕的 Opera Orig. 第IV卷，以及洛马奇 (Lommatsch) 和米涅的版本。优西比乌曾另撰一书，记述其友的生平、殉道及其所创办的学堂，但已失传。见 H. E. VII. 32；比较VI. 32；VIII. 13；尤其参看《巴勒斯坦殉道者传》(De Mart. Pal.) 第11章，其中记述了他的殉道，以及与他一同受难的十二人。Acta Passionis Pamph. 见博兰派 (Bolland.) 的 Act SS.，Junii I. 64。↩︎
H. E. VIII. 13；IX. 6。残篇见劳思，IV. 23–82。彼得在一篇论灵魂的讲道中教导说，灵魂与身体在同一天一同受造，先存论源于“希腊哲学，与那些愿在基督里过敬虔生活的人格格不入”（劳思，第49页及下页）。↩︎
我们关于希耶拉克斯 (Hierax) 的资料，几乎全都来自埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius)，Haer. 67；他称希耶拉克斯生活于戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫时期。优西比乌对他一无所知；因为优西比乌在两处（VII. 21、30）提到的埃及主教希耶拉克斯，是亚历山大的狄奥尼修的同时代人，狄奥尼修约于262年曾写给他一封逾越节书信。↩︎
哲罗姆称他为推罗 (Tyre) 主教（“Meth. Olympi Lyciae et postea Tyri episcopus”，即“美多狄乌，吕基亚奥林波斯主教，后任推罗主教”）；然而，所有其他权威史料都说他的第二个主教区是帕塔拉 (Patara)，因此“推罗”很可能是抄写者将“帕塔拉”或“米拉”(Myra) 误写的结果。米拉约位于奥林波斯 (Olympus) 与帕塔拉之间的中途，在成为独立主教区以前，可能隶属这两个教区中的一个。腓尼基 (Phoenicia) 的推罗不大可能从如此遥远的地方延请主教。哲罗姆将美多狄乌 (Methodius) 殉道的地点定在“希腊的卡尔基斯”(Chalcis，在优卑亚岛〔Eubœa〕)。但希腊文译者索弗罗尼乌 (Sophronius) 却将“在希腊”改为“在东方”。或许，正如萨蒙 (Salmon，第909页) 所提出的，哲罗姆将帕塔拉的美多狄乌与另一位美多狄乌混淆了；传统保存了后者的名字，说他在德修 (Decius) 逼迫期间于卡尔基斯殉道。这种混淆尤其可能，因为哲罗姆并不知道他殉道的时间，只说有人将此事定于戴克里先逼迫期间（“ad extremum novissimae persecutionis”，即“最近一次逼迫的末期”），另一些人则定于“sub Decio et Valeriano”（“德修和瓦勒良统治下”）的逼迫期间。↩︎
Συμπόσιον τῶν δέκα παρθένων^*，Symposium（《会饮》），或 Convivium Decem Virginum（《十童女的筵席》）。↩︎
ἁγνεύω σοι, καὶ λαμπάδας φαεσφόρους κρατοῦσα, Νυμφίε, ὑπαντάσω σοι^*。我为你持守贞洁，手执明亮的灯火；新郎啊，我前来迎接你。↩︎
Περὶ τῶν γενητῶν^*（《论受造之物》），我们仅能从佛提乌，Cod. 235中的摘录得知此书。萨蒙认为，此书就是苏格拉底 (Socrates) 在 H. E. VI. 13中所提及、攻击俄利根的 Xeno。↩︎
Περὶ αὐτεξουσίου^*，De libero arbitrio（《论自由意志》）。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、俄利根及所有希腊教父，都极力强调意志的自由。↩︎
Prœp. Evang. VII. 22；比较 H. E. V. 27；以及劳思，Rel. S. II. 87。默勒与萨蒙认为，美多狄乌借用了马克西穆 (Maximus) 的作品，只添上了修辞性的引言。↩︎
见巴罗尼乌斯 (Baron.)，Annal.，311年条；德·布罗伊 (De Broglie)，《教会与帝国》(L’église et l’empire)，I. 375；纽曼 (Newman)，《第四世纪的阿里乌派》(Arians of the Fourth Century)，第414页。↩︎
赫费勒，Conciliengesch.，第I卷，第258页及下页（第2版），也作出大致相同的推断：路迦诺 (Lucian) 起初赞同其同乡撒摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samosta) 那种视基督仅为人的基督论，因而一度被逐出教会；但后来他弃绝了这一异端，恢复了教会身份，又因改进《七十士译本》的文本及其殉道而获得盛名。↩︎
这次会议被承认为合法且正统，其二十五条教规也获得接纳，尽管它确认了此前以违反一条教规为由罢免亚他那修的决定。详细记载见赫费勒，前引书，I. 502–530。↩︎
τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν^*（独生的神）。比较梵蒂冈抄本和西奈抄本在《约翰福音》1:18的读法：μονογενὴς θεός^*（无冠词），而非 ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός^*。μονογενὴς Θεός^* 一语在尼西亚时期广为使用，不仅正统派使用，阿里乌派作者也使用，意指一位既是 θεὸς^*（神圣的）、又是 μονογενής^*（独生的）者。见霍特 (Hort) 关于这一问题的《两篇论文》(Two Dissertations)，剑桥 (Cambr.)，1876年。按路迦诺信经通常的标点法，τὸν μονογενῆ^* 与前面的 τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ^* 相连，而与 θεὸν^* 分开，因而读作“他的儿子，那独生者，神”等。↩︎
πρωτότοκον^*（不是 πρωτόκτιστον^*，即“首先受造的”）πάσης κτίσεως^*，出自《歌罗西书》1:17，意为“在一切受造之物以先的首生者”。↩︎
信经全文见亚他那修 (Athanasius)，《论阿里米努姆与塞琉西亚所召开的会议书》(Ep. de Synodis Arimini et Seleucidae celebratis)，§ 23（Opera，Montf.版，I. ii. 735）；曼西 (Mansi)，Conc. II. 1339–’42；沙弗 (Schaff)，《基督教世界的信经》(Creeds of Christendom)，II. 25–28；以及哈恩 (Hahn)，Bibl. der Symb.，第II版，第1847–’87页。赫费勒 (Hefele)，前引书，载有德译本。亚他那修、苏格拉底 (Socrates，H. E. II. 10) 和希拉里乌斯 (Hilarius，其拉丁译本见 De Syn. sive de Fide Orient.，§ 29) 均未将其列为路迦诺 (Lucian) 的信经；但索佐门 (Sozomenus) 记载（H. E. III. 5），安提阿会议的主教们将其归于路迦诺，又记载367年在卡里亚 (Caria) 举行的一次半阿里乌派会议以他的名义采纳了它（VI. 12）。凯夫 (Cave)、巴斯纳热 (Bssnage)、布尔 (Bull)、哈恩、多尔纳 (Dorner) 认为它是真作；劳思 (Routh，I. 16)、赫费勒、凯姆 (Keim)、哈纳克 (Harnack) 和卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 则对其全部或部分提出质疑；但后两位承认，其中有出自路迦诺的真实底本，后经安提阿会议扩充。末尾的咒诅语无疑是后来添加的。↩︎
关于他在《七十士译本》(Sept.) 方面的工作，见劳思 (Routh) IV. 3及下页所引的西缅·梅塔弗拉斯特 (Simeon Metaphrastes) 和苏伊达斯 (Suidas)；菲尔德 (Field) 编的俄利根 (Origen)《六经合璧》(Hexapla)；内斯特勒 (Nestle) 载于《德国东方学会杂志》(Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch.)，1878年，第465–508页的文章；以及P. 德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 拟议出版《七十士译本》的出版说明。↩︎
霍特 (Hort) 博士在韦斯科特与霍特 (Westcott and Hort)《希腊文新约》(Greek Test.，伦敦和纽约，1881年) 的《导论与附录》(Introd. and Append.)，第138页，论路迦诺说：“在已知的人名中，他比任何人都更有理由与早期叙利亚修订本联系起来；哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的一段话，也为这一推测提供了少许支持：Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos adscrit perversa contentio（我略去那些被乖谬的争辩归于路迦诺和赫叙基乌斯名下的抄本）”，等等。斯克里夫纳 (Scrivener) 博士否认存在这样的叙利亚校订本，视之为 ignis fatuus（鬼火），在其《新约校勘学导论》(Introduction to the Criticism of the N. Test.)，第3版，剑桥，1883年，第515、517页，仅略略提及路迦诺。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，H. E. VII. 32开头，谈及 Δωρόθεος^*，说自己与他有亲身交往。他称此人为“一个有学问的人（Λόγιον ἄνδρα^*），在居里鲁斯 (Cyrillus) 主教任内，荣获安提阿长老的品位”，又称他为“一个对圣经文学深具鉴赏力的人，潜心研究希伯来语言，因而能极其熟练地阅读希伯来文圣经”。他又说，此人“胸襟十分开阔，对于希腊人所修习的预备学科也并不陌生；但在另一方面，他是天生的阉人，自出生便是如此”。↩︎
H. E. II. 2。他又说，德尔图良 (Tertullian)“在罗马的杰出人物中尤为卓著”，并引用了他的《护教篇》(Apology) 中的一段话，“该书也译成了希腊文”。↩︎
在《论肉身复活》(De Resurr. Carn.)，第59章，他承认：“Ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse, neque nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti.”（我知道，我从前犯奸淫的肉身，与如今竭力追求节制的肉身，并非两个不同的肉身。）又比较 Apolog.，第18、25章；De Anima，第2章；De Paenit.，第4、12章；Ad Scapul.，第5章。↩︎
然而，这一事实仅以哲罗姆的记载为依据，在德尔图良本人的著作中并未显明。罗马天主教史家因厌恶已婚司祭，便仅凭“Nonne et Laici sacerdotes sumus?”（我们平信徒不也都是祭司吗？）这一句话，将他判为平信徒；这种根据并不充分。见 De Exhort. Cast.，第7章。↩︎
De Cultu Femin.，第7章。比较优西比乌，II. 2。↩︎
《名人传》(De Vir. illustr.)，第53章：“Hic [Tert.] cum usque ad mediam aetatem presbyter ecclesia epermansisset, invidia et contumeliis clericorum Romanae ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus in multis libris novac prophetiae meminit.”（此人〔德尔图良〕直到中年一直担任教会长老，后来因罗马教会教士的嫉妒与侮辱，转而陷入孟他努的教说，并在许多著作中提及新预言。）↩︎
Adv. Prax.，第1章。↩︎
公元前264–146年，↩︎
比较他本人在《论忍耐》(De Patient.)，第1章中痛苦的自白：“Miserrimus ego semper aeger caloribus impatientiae.”（我这极其悲惨的人，始终受急躁的热病折磨。）↩︎
同样，路德 (Luther) 本人虽是最具独创性、思想最丰饶的思想家之一，却有时不讲道理地辱骂理性，称之为魔鬼的情妇。↩︎
在这种表面上的矛盾中，路德与德尔图良相似：他凭个人判断反对罗马天主教主义，却以大公教会的权威反对茨温利主义 (Zwinlianism)、重洗派和一切宗派分子（他称他们为“Schwarm - und Rottengeister”，即狂热结党之徒）；他斥责“那该死的异教徒亚里士多德 (Aristotle)”，视之为教皇派经院哲学之父，却又采用经院哲学的区分，来支持基督身体无所不在的主张，以反对茨温利 (Zwingli)。↩︎
这是尼布尔 (Niebuhr) 的判断；他是评判拉丁古事最有资格的学者之一。某些词语和说法在首都和母国消失之后，往往仍保存于行省和殖民地。勒南 (Renan) 论德尔图良时说（Marc-Aurèle，第456页）：La ’lingua volgata’ d’Afrigue contribua ainsi dans une large part à la formation de la langue ecclésiastique de I’ Occident, et ainsi elle exerça une influence décisive sur nos langues modernes. Mais il résulta de là une autre conséquence; cest que les textes fondamentaux de la littérature latine chétienne furent écrits dans une langue que lettrés d’Italie trouvèrent barbare et corrompue, ce qui plus tard donna occasion de la part des rhéteurs à des objections et à des épigrammes sans fin.（非洲的“通俗语言”由此对西方教会语言的形成作出了很大贡献，从而对我们的现代语言产生了决定性的影响。但由此又产生了另一结果：拉丁基督教文学的基本文献，竟是用一种意大利文人视为野蛮、败坏的语言写成的；这后来招来了修辞学家无穷无尽的指责与讥讽。）比较伦施 (Rönsch)、韦尔切洛内 (Vercellone)、考伦 (Kaulen)、兰克 (Ranke) 和齐格勒 (Ziegler) 关于《古拉丁译本》(Itala) 与《武加大译本》(Vulgata) 的著作。↩︎
鲁恩肯 (Ruhnken) 称德尔图良为“Latinitatis pessimum auctorem”（拉丁文最拙劣的作者）；凯伊 (Kaye) 主教称他为“最生硬、最晦涩的作家”。但尼布尔（《古代史讲演》〔Lectures on Ancient History〕，第II卷，第54页）、厄勒 (Oehler，Op. III. 720) 和霍姆斯 (Holmes，德尔图良《驳马吉安》的译者，第ix页)，对他的文体评价较为有利，认为它大体上是“以简练而有力的表达，传达简练而有力的思想”。勒南（Marc Aurèle，第456页）称德尔图良为最奇特的文学现象：“un mélange inouï de talent, de fausseté d’esprit, d’éloquence et de mauvais goût grand écrivain, si l’on admet que sacrifier toute grammaire et toute correction à l’ effet sois bien écrire.”（才华、思想的谬误、雄辩和低劣趣味，竟以闻所未闻的方式混合在一起；如果为了效果而牺牲一切语法和准确性也算写得好，那么他就是一位大作家。）纽曼 (Newman) 枢机主教称他为“最初几个世纪中最有力的作家”（Tracts, Theol. and Eccles.，第219页）。↩︎
关于年代次序，见附注。↩︎
比较H. A. 伍德姆 (H. A. Woodham)：《德尔图良〈护教篇〉，附英文注释及教父与教会拉丁语研究导论》(Tert. Liber Apologeticus with English Notes and an Introduction to the Study of Patristical and Ecclesiastical Latinity)，剑桥，1850年；F. A. 马奇 (F. A. March) 编《德尔图良著作选》(Select Works of Tert.) 美版，纽约，1876年，第26–46页。↩︎
埃伯特 (Ebert) 最先主张《屋大维》(Octavius) 成书较早，但他仍承认（Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I. 32）：“Tertullian ist einer der genialsten, originallsten und fruchtbarstem unter den christlich-lateinischen Autoren.”（德尔图良是拉丁基督教作家中最有天才、最具独创性、最多产的作家之一。）↩︎
Praescriptio 在法律术语中，是指在讨论案件实质之前提出的抗辩，in limine（在一开始）便表明不应听取原告的诉求。罗马天主教徒极其赞赏此书，视之为捍卫大公教会信仰准则、抵御异端攻击的杰作；但德尔图良的孟他努主义 (Montanism) 削弱了它的力量。↩︎
彼得·霍姆斯 (Peter Holmes) 的英译本，收入《尼西亚前文库》(Ante-Nicene Libr.)，第VII卷，1868年（478页）。↩︎
哲罗姆将他置于德尔图良（和居普良〔Cyprian〕）之后，拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius) 则将他置于德尔图良之前。↩︎
我们也可以举出较近时期的类似情形：罗马天主教主义最有力的捍卫者，如胡尔特 (Hurter)、纽曼 (Newman)、曼宁 (Manning)、布朗 (Brown)，他们的智识与道德修养得自新教；而旧天主教 (Old Catholic) 反对梵蒂冈式罗马天主教主义的领袖，如德林格 (Döllinger)、弗里德里希 (Friedrich)、赖因肯斯 (Reinkens)、罗伊施 (Reusch)、朗根 (Langen)、冯·舒尔特 (von Schulte)，从前都是罗马教会中杰出的教师。↩︎
哲罗姆称他为“in signis causidicis Romani fori”（罗马法庭上一位杰出的辩护人），但他的依据是拉克坦提乌斯；后者或许仅从本书的引言得出此说，因为作者在那里谈到利用法庭休假之机游览奥斯提亚 (Ostia)。gens Minucia（米努基乌斯氏族）在罗马颇有名望，一方铭文（格鲁特〔Gruter〕，第918页）提到其中一人以 Felix（费利克斯）为别名。↩︎
来自基尔塔 (Cirta，今君士坦丁〔Constantine〕)。这是我们必须作出的推断，因为他称科尔内利乌斯·弗龙托 (Corn. Fronto) 为“Cirtensis noster”（我们基尔塔的同乡），见 Octav.，第9章；比较第31章：“tuus Fronto”（你的弗龙托）。↩︎
全书分为40（异本作41）个短章，在哈尔姆 (Halm) 的八开本版本中占54页。此书写于那场对话之后数年，也在屋大维 (Octavius) 去世之后（第1章：“discedens 或 decedens vir eximius et sanctus immensum sui deside rium nobis reliquit”，即“这位卓越而圣洁的人离去〔或去世〕后，留给我们无尽的思念”，等等）。↩︎
“Post haec laeti hilaresque discessimus, Caecilius quod crediderit, Octavius gaudere [ad gaudendum] quod vicerit, ego [Minuc. Fel.] et quod hic crediderit et hie vicerit.”（此后，我们欢欢喜喜地离去了：凯基利乌斯〔Caecilius〕因自己信了而欢喜；屋大维因自己得胜而欢喜；我〔米努基乌斯·费利克斯，Minuc. Fel.〕则既因这一个信了，也因那一个得胜而欢喜。）↩︎
仅有的痕迹见于第29、34章，那里或许暗指《耶利米书》17:5及《哥林多前书》15:36、42。↩︎
凯姆 (Keim) 认为他意在反驳塞尔苏斯 (Celsus，但书中从未提及此人)；德·费利斯 (De Félice) 认为他针对的是弗龙托（书中两次提及此人）；屈恩 (Kühn) 的判断更为妥当：他所针对的是公众舆论，是上层阶级对基督教的无知偏见。↩︎
第40章：“Etiam nunc tamen aliqua consubsidunt non obstrepentia veritati, sed perfectae institutioni necessaria, de quibus crastino, quod iam sol occasu declivis est, ut de toto（或 et die toto）congruentius, promptius requiremus.”（然而，现在仍有一些问题留下，并非与真理抵触，却为完备的教导所必需；太阳既已西斜，我们明日再来探讨这些问题，好作更全面〔异读：用一整天〕、更适当、更从容的查究。）↩︎
勒南（第402页）持另一种看法，即认为米努基乌斯 (Minucius) 是一位带有自然神论色彩的自由派基督徒，一个世故通达的人：“qui n’empêche ni la gaieté, ni le talent, ni le goût aimable de la vie, ni la recherche, de l’élégance du style. Que nous sommes loin de l’ébionite ou méme du juif de Galilée! Octavius, c’est Cicéron, ou mieux Fronton, devenu chrétien. En réalité, c’est par la culture intellectuelle qu’il arrive au déisme. Il aime la nature, il se plaît a la conversation des gens biens élevés. Des hommes faits sur ce modèle n’auraient créé ni l’Évangile ni l’Apocalypse; mais, réciproquement, sans de tels adhérents, l’Évangile, l’Apocalypse, les épItres de Paul fussent restés les éscrits secrets d’une secte ferméé, qui, comme les esséens ou les théapeutes, eut finlement disparu.”（他并不排斥欢乐、才华、可爱的生活情趣，也不排斥对优雅文体的追求。我们离伊便尼派信徒，甚至离加利利的犹太人，何其遥远！屋大维就是成了基督徒的西塞罗，或者更确切地说，是弗龙托。实际上，他是由智识修养而达到自然神论的。他热爱自然，喜欢与有教养的人交谈。这样的人既不会创造福音书，也不会创造《启示录》；但反过来说，若没有这样的信徒，福音书、《启示录》和保罗书信便仍不过是一个封闭宗派的秘密著作；这个宗派最终也会像艾赛尼派或治疗派一样消失。）屈恩也将米努基乌斯描绘成一位哲学家，而非基督徒，并似乎以无知来解释他为何对基督教特有的教义保持沉默。但凡受过教育的基督徒，绝不可能不知道基督及其工作，也不可能不知道那些在公共崇拜中经常被诵读的先知和使徒。↩︎
关于米努基乌斯的哲学，见屈恩的分析，第21页及后、第58页及后。↩︎
布隆代尔 (Blondel，1641年)、达耶 (Daillé，1660年)、勒斯勒 (Rösler，1777年)、鲁斯武尔姆 (Russwurm，1824年) 均曾怀疑德尔图良成书较早的说法。见屈恩，前引书，第v页。↩︎
埃伯特在论述这一问题的论文中（1866年），将《屋大维》(Octavius) 定于160年至第二世纪末之间；在他较近出版的《拉丁基督教文学史》(History of Christ. Lat. Lit.，1874年)，第I卷，第25页中，他更明确地将其定于179至185年之间（“Anfang oder Mitte der achtziger Jahre des 2. Jahrh.”，即“第二世纪八十年代初或中期”）。他假定米努基乌斯采用了雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras) 于177年所写的著作。↩︎
于伯韦格 (Ueberweg，1866年)、伦施 (Rönsch，Das n. T. Tertull.，1871年)、凯姆（1873年）、卡斯帕里（1875年，III. 411）、赫尔措格 (Herzog，1876年)、豪克 (Hauck，1877年)、邦韦奇 (Bonwetsch，1878年)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold，载于Herzog²，1882年)、屈恩（1882年）、勒南（1882年）、施文克 (Schwenke，1883年)。最后一位（第292、294页）甚至将那场口头对话推早至哈德良 (Hadrian) 时期（137年以前），而将成书时间定于安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius) 去世（160年）以前。↩︎
哈特尔 (Hartel，1869年)、耶普 (Jeep，1869年)、克卢斯曼 (Klussmann，1878年)、舒尔策 (Schultze，1881年) 和萨蒙 (Salmon，1883年)。哈特尔虽否认德尔图良借用了米努基乌斯，却不排除两人各自采用一部更早著作的可能。舒尔策将米努基乌斯推迟至图密善 (Domitian) 在位时期（300–303年），这就太晚了。↩︎
勒南（第390页）称米努基乌斯为惯于剽窃的人，经常抄袭西塞罗 (Cicero) 而不注明出处，尽管勒南将他置于德尔图良之前。栋巴特 (Dombart，第135页及后) 和施文克（第273页及后）证明他借鉴了塞涅卡 (Seneca)。↩︎
埃伯特用来判定两书先后次序的关键检验，是它们与西塞罗的关系。米努基乌斯写作时，面前摊着西塞罗的书；德尔图良则没有显示出刚读过西塞罗的迹象；因此，如果平行段落中含有西塞罗的痕迹，德尔图良必定是从米努基乌斯那里借用的。但德尔图良著作中这样的痕迹很少，这一推论也有争议。哈特尔和萨蒙（载于史密斯与韦斯〔Smith and Wace〕，III. 92）运用这一检验，却得出了相反的结论。舒尔策又证明：1）米努基乌斯除了《护教篇》(Apologeticus) 之外，还采用了德尔图良的其他著作；2）米努基乌斯在抄录西塞罗时所作的措辞改动，与他抄录德尔图良时所作的同类改动相同。↩︎
第29、33、37章。我在这些段落中找不到任何证据，足以证明当时发生过某一次特别猛烈的逼迫。第37章谈到了酷刑，但基督徒始终都有遭受酷刑的危险。总的说来，从开篇各章及整部《对话录》看来，教会的处境比较平静，正如我们所知，历次皇帝发动的逼迫之间，教会也曾间歇地享有这种安宁。舒尔策 (Schultze) 和施文克 (Schwenke) 也有同样的印象。米努基乌斯 (Minucius) 没有提到马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 时期极为流行的那种论调，即基督徒应当为一切公共灾难负责。↩︎
蒙森 (Mommsen)，Corp. Lat. Inscript. VIII. 6996及7094–7098；君士坦丁的《文集》(Recueil)，1869年，第695页。参见德绍 (Dessau) 载于《赫尔墨斯》(Hermes) 的文章，1880年，第XV卷，第471–474页；萨蒙 (Salmon)，前引书，第924页；勒南 (Renan)，前引书，第’090页及下页。勒南承认，这位凯基利乌斯 (Caecilius) 可能就是米努基乌斯的朋友，但为了支持自己的假说，又提出他是那位朋友的儿子。↩︎
V. 舒尔策否认此书出自居普良 (Cyprian)；但哲罗姆 (Jerome) 和奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 都为此书的作者归属作证。↩︎
《名人传》(Catal.)，第67章：“Cyprianus Afer primum gloriose rhetoricam docuit.”（非洲人居普良起初教授修辞学，颇负盛名。）↩︎
庞提乌斯 (Pontius) 在其《生平》(Vita) 中，将这一舍弃财产的举动（《马太福音》19:21）置于居普良受洗以前，“inter fidei prima rudimenta”（在信仰最初的启蒙阶段）。这篇传略很不令人满意，附印于居普良著作各版的卷首。不过，居普良的花园连同一所别墅，后来又归还给他，“Dei indulgentia”（因上帝的恩惠），也就是说，极有可能是借着他那些基督徒朋友的慷慨资助。↩︎
《论上帝的恩典，致多纳图斯》(De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum)，第3、4章。↩︎
“Undae genitalis auxilio”（借着使人重生之水的帮助），这当然是指洗礼。↩︎
“Da magistrum!”（把老师的书拿来！）哲罗姆在论德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的传略中如此记述，见《名人传》(Cat.)，第53章。他的依据是一位老人的见证；这位老人年轻时，曾从“notarius beati Cypriani”（蒙福的居普良的书记）那里听到这件事。就年代而言，居普良可能亲自认识德尔图良，后者至少活到220年或230年。↩︎
各版的编排次序不同，常常造成引证上的混乱。↩︎
Novatiani（诺瓦atian派），在东方也称为Καθαροί^*，意思相当于“清教徒”。↩︎
哲罗姆称他与德尔图良为 eloquentissimi viri（极富雄辩之才的人；Ad Dam. Ep. 36）。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 对他评价不佳，因为他的纪律过于严厉，似乎不给可怜的罪人留下蒙怜悯的余地。↩︎
关于罗马教会的官方语言问题，尤其可参见卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 博学而有定论性的考证，前引书，III. 430及后；以及德罗西 (De Rossi)，Rom. sotter. I. 277及后、293，II. 76及后所载的铭文。另参哈纳克 (Harnack)：D. Pseudo-Cyprian. Tractat D Aleatoribus，1888年。哥尼流 (Cornelius) 并非由罗马教会正式安葬，而是由该教会的私人信徒安葬的。↩︎
参见优西比乌 VI. 33所保存的哥尼流致法比乌斯 (Fabius) 书信。↩︎
居普良《书信》(Ep.) XXX（牛津版及哈特尔〔Hartel〕版）。英译本见《尼西亚前期文库》(Ante-Nic. Libr.) 中的《居普良著作》，I. 85–92。此信出自诺瓦atian (Novatian)，可由居普良《书信》LV（ad Antonianum，致安东尼亚努斯）第4章看出；居普良在那里引述此信的一段话，随后补充说：“Additum est etiam Novatiano tunc scribente”（当时诺瓦atian执笔时，还加上了），等等。↩︎
第2章。另比较第3章，他在那里说：“罗马教会断不可因如此亵渎的宽纵而松弛自己的力量，也不可推翻信仰的尊严，削弱严厉纪律的筋骨；当你们那些败亡的弟兄的残骸不仅横陈遍地，而且还在周围不断倒下时，断不可为了让他们领受圣餐，便施以过于仓促、而且必定无济于事的救治；也不可用虚假的怜悯，在他们犯罪的旧伤上再添新伤，以致连悔改也从这些可怜人身上夺去，使他们陷入更大的败亡。”第7章又说：“凡在人面前不认我的，我在我父和他的众使者面前也必不认他。因为上帝虽有怜悯，却也要求人遵守他的诫命，而且确实严格要求；他虽邀请人赴筵席，却也将那没有穿礼服的人捆起手脚，赶到圣徒会众之外。他预备了天堂，也预备了地狱。他预备了安息之所，也预备了永刑。他预备了人不能靠近的光，也预备了永夜中无边无尽的黑暗。”在结尾处，他赞成对那些已经悔改、濒临死亡的失足者破例，谨慎地给予帮助，“使不敬虔的人不能称赞我们轻率的宽纵，真正悔改的人也不能指责我们的严厉是残酷的”。这封信洗脱了加在诺瓦atian身上的一种指责，即他发动分裂主要出于个人动机；教宗哥尼流（优西比乌 VI. 43）及罗马教会史家都持此说（哈纳克亦然，见赫尔措格〔Herzog〕，X. 661）。↩︎
“Ex exigna et vilissima Italiae parte.”（来自意大利一个微不足道、极其卑下的地方。）参见雅费 (Jaffé)，Regesta Pontif. Rom.，第7页。哥尼流在致法比安 (Fabian) 的信中（优西比乌 VI. 43），将这三位主教描述为可鄙的无知之徒，说他们醉酒后，“以虚幻而空洞的按手”给诺瓦atian行了按立礼。↩︎
《论坚忍》(De Instantia)，很可能是指在逼迫中，而非在祷告中坚忍。参见卡斯帕里，第428页，注284，其中反对拉德纳 (Lardner) 和伦佩尔 (Lumper) 将其解释为在祷告中恒切的看法；不过，这一主题无疑已在《论祷告》(De Oratione) 中论述，而梵蒂冈抄本在此处却作《论按立》(De Ordinatione)。↩︎
第二首诗的抄本称他为主教。康莫迪安 (Commodian) 并未表明自己的教职身份，但从他的学识作出这一推断，是有根据的。他在第二首诗的末节自称 Gazaeus。埃伯特 (Ebert) 从地理意义上理解这个词，认为他来自叙利亚的迦萨城 (Gaza)。但若如此，他本该用希腊文或叙利亚文写作。较早的解释更为可取：此词源自 Gaza（γάζα^*，财宝），或 gazophylacium（γαζοφυλάκιον^*，库房），表示他拥有使人得救的真理之宝，或靠教会的库款维持生活。↩︎
埃伯特提出，他曾是归信犹太教的外邦人；但他在第一首诗的引言中说，自己从前敬拜众神（deos vanos，虚妄的神），而他与大多数教父著作家一样，认为这些神就是鬼魔。↩︎
作者责备外邦人，在基督教已存在200年之后，仍执意不信（VI. 2）。埃伯特将《训诫》(Instructions) 的年代推早至239年。阿尔措格 (Alzog) 则将其定得晚得多。↩︎
参见上文第854页，注1。↩︎
最后五行如下（见米涅〔Migne〕，V. 第261、262栏）：

“ostenduntur illis, et legunt gesta de coelo

memoria prisca debito et merita digno.

merces in perpetuo secundum facta tyranno.

omnia non possum comprehendere parvo libello.

curiositas docti inveniet nomenin isto.

（这些事向他们显明，他们读到从天而来的事迹，

古老的记忆，按所欠的债、按配得的功绩。

暴君按其所行，永远受报。

我不能将一切都容纳在这本小书之中。

博学者的探究会在其中找到名字。）↩︎
《神圣教义》(Inst. Div.)，VII. 16及后。↩︎
《驳异教徒》(Adv. Nat.)，I. 39，赖弗沙伊德 (Reifferscheid) 编，第26页。↩︎
在第V卷第22章，他详述朱庇特 (Jupiter) 的罪行，说他夺去了刻瑞斯 (Ceres)、勒达 (Leda)、达娜厄 (Danae)、欧罗巴 (Europa)、阿尔克墨娜 (Alcmena)、厄勒克特拉 (Electra)、拉托娜 (Latona)、拉奥达弥亚 (Laodamia)，以及“其他一千名处女和一千名妇人，连同少年卡塔米图斯 (Catamitus) 的名节与贞操”，并被塑造成“舞台上一切污秽”的集大成者。↩︎
他说，基督教当时已经存在三百年（I. 13），罗马城已有一千零五十年的历史（II. 71）。后一个年代，按照瓦罗纪元 (Varronian era) 或法比乌斯纪元 (Fabian era) 推算，分别为公元296年或303年，两者皆有可能。↩︎
1. 36；比较 I. 26；II. 77；III. 36等。另比较优西比乌《教会史》(H. E.)，VIII. 2。
↩︎
藏于巴黎国家图书馆，编号1661。布鲁塞尔的本子仅为一份誊本。这份抄本虽然字迹工整，文字却讹误甚多，留下许多需要推校之处。赖弗沙伊德于1867年在巴黎仔细校勘过它。↩︎
“那句众所周知的话（illud vulgatum），你们难道从未听过吗：人的智慧，在上帝看是愚拙？”II. 6；比较《哥林多前书》3:19。↩︎
论基督神性最有力的段落是 I. 37、39、42及53。最后一段说（赖弗沙伊德编，第36页）：“Deus ille sublimis fuit [Christus], deus radice ab intima, deus ab incognitis regnis et ab omnium principe deo sospitator est missus”（他〔基督〕是崇高的上帝，是从最深根源而出的上帝，是从未知的国度而来的上帝，由统管万有的上帝差来作救主）。↩︎
“per purae speciem simplicitatis”（借着纯朴无伪的形态），I. 46。这一段不支持阿尔诺比乌 (Arnobius) 因梦而归信的故事。↩︎
我不能同意埃伯特（第69页）的看法；他说基督教并未使阿尔诺比乌的内心发生道德上的改变：“In seinem Stil ist Arnobius durchaus Heide, und auch dies ist ein Zeugniss für die Art seines Christenthums, das eben eine innere Umwandlung nicht bewirkt hatte. Das Gemüth hat an seinem Ausdruck nirgends einen Antheil.”（就文风而言，阿尔诺比乌完全是个异教徒；这也证明了他的基督教信仰是何种性质，因为它恰恰没有造成内在的转变。他的文字表达中，没有一处有内心情感的参与。）↩︎
I. 9。↩︎
1. 36。
↩︎
Vict. Petavionensis 或 Petabionensis；不是《罗马殉道者名录》(Rom. Martyrologium) 及巴罗尼乌 (Baronius) 所作的 Pictaviensis（来自普瓦捷〔Poictiers〕）。据说约翰·洛努瓦 (John Launoy，卒于1678年) 最先纠正了这一错误。↩︎
《论耶稣基督为神又为人的诗歌》(Carmina de Jesu Christo Deo et homine)；《生命树》(Lignum Vitae)；还有收在德尔图良及居普良著作中的赞美诗《论十字架》(De Cruce) 或《论逾越节》(De Paschate)。劳思 (Routh)，III. 483，否认其真实性；伦佩尔亦然，见米涅 V. 294。↩︎
比较吕克 (Lüke)，《约翰启示录导论》(Einleitung in die Offen b. Joh)，第972–982页（第2版）；以及布莱克 (Bleek)，《启示录讲义》(Vorlesungen über die Apok.)，第34页及下页。吕克 (Lücke) 和布莱克都认为这部注释出自维克托里努斯 (Victorinus)，但含有后人插入的文字。布莱克认为，其原本的千禧年主义色彩更为鲜明。↩︎
正如卡西奥多鲁斯 (Cassiodorus) 所说：“Difficillima quaedam loca breviter tractavit.”（他简要地论述了某些极难的段落。）↩︎
对17:10、11的这一解释，是建立在尼禄 (Nero) 将作为敌基督重返世间的期待之上；后来安德烈 (Andreas) 和阿瑞塔斯 (Arethas) 有充分理由将其弃置，但近代支持尼禄假说的人又使之复兴，只是对皇帝的计数方式不同。参见第I卷，第864页及后的讨论。↩︎
T=300；E=5；I=10；T=300；A=1；N=50；合计666。去掉末尾的 n，便得到 Teita=616，这是爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 所提及的13:18的另一异读。提图斯 (Titus) 毁灭了耶路撒冷，但他是在不自觉中应验了基督的预言；他并未逼迫教会，而且是罗马皇帝中最贤明者之一。↩︎
D=500；I=1；C=100；L=50；V=5；X=10；合计=666。“Id est quod Graece sonat τειτάν^* id quod Latine dicitur diclux, quo nomine per antiphrasin expresso intelligimus antichrstum, qui cum a luce superna abscissus sit et ea privatus, transfigurat tamen se in angelum lucis audens sese dicere lucem. Item invenimus in quodom codice, Graeco ἄντεμος^*。”（也就是说，希腊文所称的这个名字，在拉丁文中称为 diclux；我们将这个以反语表达的名字理解为敌基督。他虽与天上的光隔绝，并被剥夺了这光，却仍装作光明的天使，胆敢自称为光。我们还在某一希腊文抄本中发现了另一个名字。）最后这个名字或许是 Ἄντειμος^* 的讹写；后者见于默西亚 (Moesia) 的钱币，用来称呼一个统治王朝；也可能意在描述一种品性：honori contrarius（与尊荣相反）。参见米涅，V. 339，以及吕克，第978页。↩︎
“Nam regnum Christi nunc est sempiternum in sanctis, cum fuerit gloria post resurrectionem manifestata sanctorum.”（因为基督的国如今在圣徒中是永远的，待圣徒复活之后，荣耀便要显明。）（米涅 V. 344。）↩︎
比较§188，第612页及后。↩︎
优西比乌卒于公元340年；拉克坦提乌 (Lactantius) 卒于320至330年之间；何西乌 (Hosius) 卒于357至360年之间。↩︎
何西乌没有留下著作。我们所拥有的唯一出自他手笔的文献，是他致阿里乌派皇帝君士坦提乌 (Constantius) 的信，由亚他那修 (Athanasius) 保存下来（《阿里乌派史》〔Hist. Arian.〕，44）。参见盖恩斯 (Gains)，前引书，II. 215及后。此信以这句高尚的话开头：“早在你的祖父马克西米安 (Maximian) 逼迫教会以前很久，我就已是信仰的宣认者。你若逼迫我，我宁愿忍受一切，也不愿流无辜人的血，背叛真理。”不幸的是，他在极其衰老之年，因遭受身体上的暴力而屈服，签署了一份阿里乌派信经，但临终前深深痛悔。亚他那修明确说（前引书，45）：“在死亡临近时，他仿佛以最后遗嘱的形式，弃绝了阿里乌派异端，并严命任何人都不可接受它。”他究竟于357年死在西尔米乌姆 (Sirmium)，还是获准返回西班牙，并于约359年或360年在那里去世，仍有争议。我们只知道，他活了一百多岁，担任主教六十多年。亚他那修，前引书；苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpicius Severus)，《历史》(Hist.)，II. 55。↩︎

第十三章 尼西亚会议前时期的教会文献与教父传略

目录

§ 159. 参考文献

§ 160. 对教父的总体评价

附注

§ 161. 使徒教父

史料

研究著作

§ 162. 罗马的革利免

§ 163. 伪克莱门著作

§ 164. 安提阿的伊格纳修 (Ignatius of Antioch)

史料

批判性讨论

关于年代问题

§ 165. 伊格纳修之争

§ 166. 士每拿的坡旅甲

附注

§ 167. 巴拿巴

版本

批判性研究

§ 168. 黑马 (Hermas)

版本

论文

附注

§ 169. 帕皮亚 (Papias)

附注

§ 170. 《致丢格那妥书》

版本

研究论著

§ 171. 罗马的西克斯图斯

附注

§ 172. 护教士：夸德拉图斯与阿里斯提德

§ 173. 哲学家与殉道者游斯丁

殉道者游斯丁著作的版本

关于殉道者游斯丁的著作

附注

§ 174. 其他希腊护教士：他提安

§ 175. 雅典那哥拉

§ 176. 安提阿的提阿非罗

附注

§ 177. 撒狄的米利都

§ 178. 希拉波立的阿波利拿里；米尔提亚德

§ 179. 赫尔米亚斯

§ 180. 赫格西卜

§ 181. 哥林多的狄奥尼修

§ 182. 爱任纽

传记与批判研究

§ 183. 希坡吕托斯 (Hippolytus)

附注

§ 184. 罗马的该犹

§ 185. 亚历山大神学学派

§ 186. 亚历山大的革利免

§ 187. 奥利金

§ 188. 奥利金的著作

§ 189. 行神迹者贵格利

注释

行神迹者贵格利的《信仰宣言》

§ 190. 大狄奥尼修

§ 191. 尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯

§ 192. 希腊教会的次要神学家

§ 193. 俄利根的反对者：美多迪乌

§ 194. 安提阿的路吉安

§ 195. 安提阿学派

附注

§ 196. 德尔图良与非洲学派

附注

§ 197. 德尔图良的著作

附注

§ 198.s 米努基乌斯·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix)

§ 199. 居普良 (Cyprian)

§ 200. 诺瓦提安

§ 201. 康莫迪安

§ 202. 阿尔诺比乌斯

§ 203. 佩陶的维克托里努斯

§ 204. 优西比乌、拉克坦提乌斯、何西乌

Original Text

CHAPTER XIII. ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE, AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE CHURCH-FATHERS.

§ 159. Literature.

§ 160. A General Estimate of the Fathers.

Notes.

第十三章尼西亚会议前时期的教会文献与教父传略