Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第二章 基督教在文献上对希腊与罗马异教的胜利

目录

§ 8. 异教的论战：新的异议

§ 9. 尤利安对基督教的攻击

§ 10. 异教的护教文献

§ 11. 基督教护教家与论战家

§ 12. 奥古斯丁的《上帝之城》；萨尔维安

§ 8. 异教的论战：新的异议

I. 参较第4、5节所列史料，尤其是背教者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate) 的《驳基督徒》(Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν^*)，以及利巴尼乌斯 (Libanius) 的《论神庙》(ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱερῶν^*)。另有伪卢奇安 (Pseudo-Lucian) 的《爱国者》(Philopatris)（作于尤利安时代或更晚，收入卢奇安的著作集）。普罗克洛 (Proclus，412–487)：《驳基督徒十八论证》(xviii ἐπιχειρήματα κατὰ χριστιανῶν^*)（保存在约翰·菲洛波努斯 (Joh. Philoponus) 的反驳著作《论世界的永恒》〔De aeternitate mundi，威尼斯版，1535年〕中）。欧纳皮乌斯 (Eunapius) 和佐西穆斯 (Zosimus) 的历史著作也有部分相关内容。

2. 达尔让侯爵 (Marqu. d’Argens)：《尤利安皇帝为异教辩护，希腊文与法文对照》(defense du paganisme par l’emper. Julien en grec et en franc.)（从西里尔著作所存片段中辑出），附论文数篇 (avec des dissertat.)。柏林，1764年；增订第2版，1767年。这部奇特的著作引出了两部反驳它的著作，分别由 G. Fr. 迈尔 (G. Fr. Meier) 于1764年、W. 克赖顿 (W. Crichton) 于1765年在哈雷出版，再次驳斥尤利安的论点。纳撒尼尔·拉德纳 (Nath. Lardner) 在其博学的古代异教见证汇编中，为福音历史的可信性搜集证据，也详论了尤利安。参见其《全集》，基皮斯博士 (Dr. Kippis) 编，伦敦，1838年，第vii卷，第581–652页。施勒克 (Schröckh)：第vi卷，第354–385页。尼安德 (Neander)：第iii卷，第77页及后（托里 (Torrey) 英译本，第ii卷，第84–93页）。

异教与基督教之间的内在冲突，同样呈现出一方趋于瓦解、另一方自觉有力的景象。在这方面，尼西亚时期 (Nicene age) 收获了早期护教士的成果；他们曾在逼迫之中，以才智和无畏的精神，捍卫真宗教的真理，驳斥偶像崇拜的谬误。¹ 文献上对基督教的反对，实际上早已耗尽力量；如今局势的巨变，使它转而为异教辩护，而基督徒一方昔日的辩护，如今则成了胜利的论战。最后的敌人是新柏拉图主义哲学 (Neo-Platonic philosophy)，尤其是亚历山大 (Alexandria) 和雅典 (Athens) 的学派所传授的这一哲学，其传授甚至延续至第五世纪。然而，正如我们先前所说，² 这种哲学已不再是纯粹而富于生气的异教的产物，而是把异教与基督教、东方与希腊、思辨与神术的种种成分人为拼合而成的混融体系；它所表明的，不过是旧宗教日益衰弱，以及新宗教具有不可抗拒的力量。

除了那些屡遭驳斥的旧异议，君士坦丁 (Constantine) 时代以后又出现了种种新异议，其中有些甚至与早先的异议正好相反。这些异议所针对的，与其说是圣经中的基督教，不如说或多或少是尼西亚及后尼西亚时期的国教体制，并且见证了异教成分侵入教会。从前，面对普遍的腐化，生活简朴、道德纯洁是基督徒最显著的美德；如今，人们却可以公正地指出，既然整个世界都拥入教会，教会也就让世上一切恶习随之而入。诚然，基督教真正的美德，在抵抗这些恶习时，仍显出一如既往的力量。然而，异教徒若非不能，就是不愿透过外表，分辨麦子和糠秕。再者，前三世纪的基督徒曾冒着生命危险承认自己的信仰，在苦难与死亡中持守信仰，所求的也不过是宽容；如今，他们却不得不面对少数异教徒的责难，被指为虚伪、自私、野心勃勃、不容异己，并且怀着逼迫异教徒、犹太人和异端者的精神。他们从前被疑为皇帝与帝国的敌人，如今却在各方面被指责为奴颜婢膝、谄媚顺从基督徒统治者。从前，他们以憎恶一切偶像崇拜和敬拜中的一切铺张而著称；如今，他们对殉道者和圣物日益增长的崇敬，却仿佛重现了古代的英雄崇拜，甚至有过之而无不及。

最后，甚至基督教的胜利也成了责难它的口实。最后几位异教史家不仅把频繁发生的公共灾难归咎于基督教——这种指控在马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 统治下和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的时代就已存在——还把一度如此强盛的罗马帝国的衰亡归咎于它。然而，这种当时十分流行的异议，只须一个简单的事实便可驳倒：在基督教较早而且更彻底地取得优势的东方，帝国比西方部分多延续了近十个世纪。西罗马帝国的瓦解，毋宁说是由于其疆域过于辽阔、难以治理，蛮族的入侵，以及道德的衰败；被征服各民族的一切恶习传入帝国，更加速了这种衰败，而这种衰败在奥古斯都 (Augustus) 统治下，甚至在共和国的辉煌时期，就已经开始了；因为，若不是公共与私人德行的根基遭到破坏，共和国本会延续得长久得多。³ 从更高的观点来看，罗马的倾覆乃是上帝对本质上属于异教的旧世界的审判，正如耶路撒冷的毁灭是因犹太民族的不信而临到他们的审判。然而，这同时也是向一个新创造不可避免的过渡；基督教不久便开始在异教世界的废墟上建造这新创造，使蛮族征服者归信，并建立一种更高的基督教文明。这是对那些反对十字架宗教的异教徒所提出的最后一项指控的最好驳斥。

§ 9. 尤利安对基督教的攻击

相关文献参较第4节，第39、40页。

对基督教的最后一次直接而系统的攻击，出自尤利安皇帝。他于363年在安提阿 (Antioch) 度过的那些冬夜中，为了向全世界说明自己背教的理由，撰写了一部反对基督徒的著作。这部著作至少有一些片段保存在亚历山大的西里尔 (Cyril of Alexandria) 约于432年所写的驳论中。全书三卷，也可能是七卷（西里尔只提到三卷⁴），对于基督教这一无论如何都是极其重大的现象，丝毫没有表现出冷静的哲学或历史的理解。尤利安对于罪与救赎这些根本观念，以及谦卑与爱这些首要美德，毫无领会。他完全立足于自然主义 (naturalism) 的领域，在那里，太阳神赫利俄斯 (Helios) 的自然之光遮蔽了真理之王的柔和光辉，对世俗伟大的钦慕，使人无暇认识舍己所具有的属灵荣耀。他以变换的形式，重述克尔苏 (Celsus) 和波菲利 (Porphyry) 一类人的论点；又凭借自己对圣经较广泛的熟悉，扩充了这些论点——他在教士教育中曾按字句学习圣经；并且在这一切论述中注入一个背教者的刻骨仇恨，这与他那著名的宽容很不相称，也使他完全看不见对手身上的任何长处。他把“加利利人”的宗教称为人所编造的不敬虔之物，是犹太教与异教中最坏成分的混合物，却没有二者的任何优点；也就是说，既没有前者虽略显严厉却有益的规训，也没有后者对诸神的虔诚信仰。因此，他把基督徒比作水蛭，只吸取一切污血，却把纯净的血留下。在他看来，耶稣这个“死去的犹太人”，生前与异教英雄相比，并没有做过什么非凡的事，不过医治瘸子和瞎子，赶出附在人身上的鬼，而这算不得什么大事。⁵ 他只能说服几个无知的乡民，连自己的亲属也未能争取过来。⁶ 马太、马可、路加和保罗，都没有称他为上帝。约翰是第一个胆敢走到这一步的人，并以狡猾的手段使人接受他的见解。⁷ 后来的基督徒更加不敬虔地歪曲了他的教义，摒弃了犹太人的献祭敬拜和礼仪律法，而这些律法原是为万世颁赐的，耶稣自己也曾宣告其不可废除。⁸ 在他看来，既然不同民族的性格各有特点，一种普世的宗教便既不合理，也不可能。他竭力揭露圣经中各式各样的矛盾和荒谬。摩西的创造史有缺陷，无法与柏拉图的相比。夏娃被赐给亚当作帮助者，却反使他走入歧途。蛇被赋予人的言语，又遭到咒诅，然而它却引导人认识善恶，因而证明自己大有益处。摩西把上帝描述为忌邪的，教导一神论，却又因称天使为神而教导多神论。十诫中的道德诫命，除了“除了我以外，你不可有别的神”和“当记念安息日”之外，在异教徒中也都可以找到。他推崇来库古 (Lycurgus) 和梭伦 (Solon)，认为他们胜过摩西。至于参孙和大卫，他们的勇武并不十分出众，许多希腊人和埃及人都超过他们，而且他们的一切权势都局限在犹太地的狭小疆域之内。犹太人从来没有过足以匹敌亚历山大 (Alexander) 或凯撒 (Caesar) 的将领。所罗门无法与忒奥格尼斯 (Theognis)、苏格拉底 (Socrates) 及其他希腊贤哲相比；况且，据说他曾被妇女所胜，因此不配列于智者之中。保罗是一个大叛徒；他一时称上帝为犹太人的上帝，一时称他为外邦人的上帝，一时又说两者皆是；他屡屡与旧约、基督以及他自己相矛盾，并且惯于随环境调整自己的教义。这位异教皇帝认为，基督教的洗礼竟能洗净重罪，却不能除去疣、痛风或任何身体的疾病，实在荒谬。他把圣经置于希腊文学之下，认为二者相去甚远，并声称圣经使人成为奴隶，而对古典著作的研习则造就了伟大的英雄和哲学家。他把最初的基督徒称为最可鄙的人，又指责他那个时代的基督徒无知、不容异己，并且敬拜死人、骸骨和十字架的木头。

尤利安虽然对基督教极尽讥讽和刻毒之能事，却在无意中为他所仇恨和攻击的宗教的历史真实性提供了一些宝贵的论据。博学而富于考辨精神的拉德纳，在仔细分析了他反对基督教的著作之后，精辟而如实地将尤利安有利于基督教的见证概括如下：

“尤利安既反对基督徒，也反对犹太人。他为新约的历史及其各卷书提供了宝贵的见证；凡读过以上从他著作中摘录的文字的人，都必须承认这一点。他承认，耶稣生于奥古斯都 (Augustus) 在位期间，即居里扭 (Cyrenius) 在犹太地办理户口登记之时；基督教兴起并开始传播于提比略 (Tiberius) 和克劳狄 (Claudius) 两位皇帝在位期间。他为马太、马可、路加、约翰四福音书及《使徒行传》的真确性与可信性作证；而且，他引用这些书的方式表明，这些是基督徒奉为权威的仅有的历史书，也是关于耶稣基督及其使徒，以及他们所传教义的仅有的可靠记述。他承认这些书成书很早，甚至为此提出论证。他也引用或明确提及《使徒行传》，以及圣保罗的《罗马书》《哥林多书》和《加拉太书》。他不否认耶稣基督的神迹，而承认他曾‘医治瞎子、瘸子和被鬼附的人’，并且‘斥责风，在海浪上行走’。他固然竭力贬低这些作为，却是徒然。由此得出的结论无可否认：这样的作为，是奉上帝差遣的有力证据。他也竭力减少早期信耶稣之人的数目，却又承认，在圣约翰写福音书以前，‘希腊和意大利已有许多这样的人’。他同样故意贬低早期信徒的社会地位，却又承认，除了‘仆人和使女’之外，凯撒利亚的罗马百夫长哥尼流，以及塞浦路斯 (Cyprus) 的总督士求保罗 (Sergius Paulus)，都在克劳狄统治结束以前归信了耶稣。他也常常满怀愤恨地谈论彼得和保罗——耶稣的这两位伟大使徒，以及卓有成效的福音传道者。因此，总的说来，他无意间为新约各卷书中所记载的许多事情的真实性作了见证：他本想推翻基督教，却反而证实了它；他反对基督教的论据全然无害，甚至不足以动摇最软弱的基督徒。他对自己时代或稍早一些时候的信徒后来引入基督教信仰中的某些事物，提出了正当的异议；但对于新约真确可信的各卷书所包含的基督教，他却没有提出一项有分量的反驳。”⁹

其他反对基督教的著作，重要性就小得多了。

对话篇《爱国者》(Philopatris，或 The Patriot)，固然被归于善于嘲弄讽刺的路吉安 (Lucian，约卒于200年)，并收入他的著作中；但其文体远为逊色，很可能属于尤利安统治时期，或更晚的时代；¹⁰因为它攻击教会关于三位一体和圣灵由父而出的教义，所用的却不是论证，而只是嘲笑。它借一位公开信奉异教的克里提亚斯 (Critias)，与一位扮作基督徒的伊壁鸠鲁派 (Epicurean) 人物特里丰 (Triephon) 之间的对话，轻浮地嘲弄基督徒的品格和教义。它把基督徒描绘成对政府心怀不满、危害公民社会、以公共灾难为乐的人。它把圣保罗称为一个半秃、长鼻的加利利人，说他曾穿越天空，直达第三层天（《哥林多后书》12:1–4）。

新柏拉图主义 (Neo-Platonism) 最后一位著名代表、雅典的普罗克洛 (Proclus，卒于487年)，为柏拉图关于世界永恒的学说辩护；他虽未提及基督教，却提出十八条论据，反驳圣经关于创造和世界终结的教义。基督教哲学家约翰·斐洛波努斯 (John Philoponus) 于七世纪驳斥了这些论据。

五世纪上半叶最后的异教历史学家欧纳庇乌斯 (Eunapius) 和佐西穆斯 (Zosimus)，片面叙述自君士坦丁 (Constantine) 以来的罗马帝国史，并把帝国的衰落归咎于基督教，以此间接攻击基督教；与之相反，阿米阿努斯·马尔凯利努斯 (Ammianus Marcellinus，约卒于390年) 则以可敬的公正态度，既记述基督徒皇帝们及背教者尤利安的阴暗面，也记述他们的光明面。¹¹

§ 10. 异教的护教文献

尤利安死后，大多数异教作家，尤其是其中最有才干、最值得敬重的人，都把自己的工作限于维护本身的宗教；因此，由于自身所处的地位，他们成了宽容的倡导者；当然，他们所倡导的，是对宗教混合主义 (religious syncretism) 的宽容，而这种混合主义在较为冷淡的形态下，会蜕变为哲学上的宗教冷漠主义 (philosophical indifferentism)。

这些人包括修辞学教师、元老院议员、君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 城市长官，后来又担任年幼皇帝阿卡狄乌斯 (Arcadius) 导师的忒弥斯提乌斯 (Themistius)；格拉提安 (Gratian) 和瓦伦提尼安二世 (Valentinian II) 统治时期的修辞学家、元老院议员和罗马城市长官，为胜利女神维多利亚 (Victoria) 的祭坛慷慨陈词的奥勒留·辛马库斯 (Aurelius Symmachus)；尤其还有尤利安的朋友和仰慕者、先后在君士坦丁堡、尼科米底亚 (Nicomedia) 和安提阿任教的修辞学家利巴尼乌斯 (Libanius)。他们都属于四世纪后半叶，既代表古典雄辩术最后的繁盛，也代表它的衰落。他们都或多或少地信奉新柏拉图派的混合主义。他们认为，神已将宗教的天性和需要植入所有人心中，却把敬拜上帝的具体形式，留给各民族和个人自由决定；因此，一切外在强制都违背宗教的本性，只能产生虚伪。忒弥斯提乌斯为宗教形式的这种多样性辩护，认为它有利于宗教本身，正如许多新教徒为宗派制度辩护一样。他在论约维安 (Jovian) 的演说中说：“不同宗教之间的竞争，有助于激发敬拜上帝的热忱。通往同一目标的道路有许多条，有的艰难，有的容易，有的崎岖，有的平坦。若只留一条道路，将其余的全部封闭，你就摧毁了竞进之心。上帝并不要人间有这样的划一……宇宙的主喜爱多样性。他的旨意是，要叙利亚人、希腊人、埃及人各按本民族的方式敬拜他；也要叙利亚人再分成许多小宗派，没有哪一派与另一派完全一致。我们何必要这样强求不可能之事呢？”辛马库斯也以同样的方式论辩；他避免一切对基督教的直接攻击，只反对它独占至高地位。

利巴尼乌斯在呈给狄奥多西一世 (Theodosius I) 的护庙陈词中（384年或390年），动用了宗教、政治和艺术方面的一切论据，为异教圣所辩护，其间却也夹杂着对那些捣毁庙宇的修士的尖刻指责。他所提出的论点之一是，基督教本身的原则就谴责在宗教事务上使用强力，并赞许容许人自由持守自己的信念。

当然，异教这种为宽容而作的申辩，不过是一个前途无望的少数群体最后的拼死自卫；对于异教在最初三个世纪中逼迫基督教的行为，这也构成了一种间接的自我谴责。

§ 11. 基督教护教家与论战家

史料

I. 希腊护教家：凯撒利亚的优西比乌 (Eusebius Caes.)：《福音预备》(Προπαρασκευὴ εὐαγγελική^*，Preparatio evang.) 和《福音论证》(Ἀπόδειξις εὐαγγελική^*，Demonstratio evang.)；此外还有他反驳希耶罗克勒斯 (Hierocles) 的论战著作，以及其《神显》(Theophany)，后者于1842年在一份叙利亚文译本中被发现（李氏编本，Lee，Lond.，1842年）。亚他那修 (Athanasius)：《驳异教徒》(Κατὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων^*，Oratio contra Gentes) 和《论上帝之道的道成肉身》(Περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Λόγου^*，De incarnatione Verbi Dei)：这两篇论著互相配合（《全集》Opera，本笃会编本，ed. Bened.，第i卷，第1页及后）。亚历山大的西里尔 (Cyril of Alex.)：《驳不敬虔的尤利安》十卷 (Contra impium Julianum libri X)（附尤利安反对基督教的三卷著作的摘录）。狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)：《医治希腊人的病症》(Graecarum affectionum curatio，Ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων^*)，十二篇论辩。

2. 拉丁护教家：拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)：《神圣教导》七卷 (Instit. divin. l. vii)（尤其是前三卷：《论虚假的宗教》de falsa religione、《论谬误的起源》de origine erroris 和《论虚假的智慧》de falsa sapientia；第三卷反对异教哲学）。尤利乌斯·菲尔米库斯·马特尔努斯 (Julius Firmicus Maternus)：《论异教的谬误》(De errore profanarum religionum)（古代作家未曾提及，但十六世纪曾数次刊行，近又由F. 明特尔〔F. Münter〕编辑出版，Havn.，1826年）。安布罗斯 (Ambrose)：《书信》(Ep.) 第17、18封（反对辛马库斯）。普鲁登提乌斯 (Prudentius)：《驳辛马库斯》(In Symmachum)（一首护教诗）。保罗·奥罗修斯 (Paul. Orosius)：《驳异教徒历史七卷》(Adv. paganos historiarum l. vii)（一部护教性的世界史，反对欧纳庇乌斯和佐西穆斯）。奥古斯丁 (Augustine)：《上帝之城》二十二卷 (De civitate Dei l. xxii)（常单独出版）。萨尔维安 (Salvianus)：《论上帝的治理》八卷 (De gubernatione Dei l. viii)（第八卷不完整）。

近代文献

部分可参较第i卷第63节的护教文献。另参施勒克 (Schrökh)：第vii卷，第263–355页。尼安德 (Neander)：第iii卷，第188–195页（托里〔Torrey〕英译本，第ii卷，第90–93页）。德林格 (Döllinger，罗马天主教)：《教会史手册》(Hdbuch der K. G.)，第I卷，第2部分，第50–91页。K. 韦尔纳 (K. Werner，罗马天主教)：《基督教神学护教与论战文献史》(Geschichte der Apolog. und polem. Literatur der christl. Theol.)，沙夫豪森 (Schaffh.)，1861–1865年，4卷，第i卷。

在新的形势下，基督教的辩护工作，已不像君士坦丁以前那样具有迫切而直接的重要性。教会的神学活动，如今主要转向内部的教义争论。不过，四、五世纪仍产生了几部重要的护教著作，远远胜过异教方面的同类文献。

（1）在君士坦丁治下，有用拉丁文写作的拉克坦提乌斯，以及用希腊文写作的优西比乌和亚他那修；他们与晚一个世纪的狄奥多勒一同，代表了旧式护教的终结。

拉克坦提乌斯在为基督教真理辩护之前，先驳斥异教的迷信与哲学；而他在驳斥方面，比在正面辩护方面更为成功。他为一切宗教要求自由，代表了君士坦丁宽容敕令的过渡性立场。

著名历史学家优西比乌凭借勤勉和博学，在几部护教著作中，尤其在《福音预备》中，汇集了反对异教的常用论据；又在《福音论证》中汇集了基督教的正面证据，尤其着重于预言。

伟大的亚他那修 (Athanasius) 学识虽稍逊一筹，思辨的广度与敏锐却远为出众。他在青年时期所作的《驳希腊人》和《论逻各斯道成肉身》（325年以前）中，勾勒了论证基督教神圣起源、真实性、合理性与完满性的主要纲要。这两篇论著，尤其是后一篇，是继俄利根 (Origen) 的教义著作《论原理》(De principiis) 之后，首次尝试以关于上帝与世界、罪与救赎的若干基本观念，建立基督教的系统学理体系；它们也是希腊教会正面护教工作结出的成熟果实。亚他那修教导说，逻各斯 (Logos) 是那永活、独一真神的像；人则是逻各斯的像。乐园中起初的圣洁与福乐，就在于与他的相交。人出于自己的意志而堕落，因此需要救赎。恶本身并非一种实体，也不像希腊人所设想的那样就是物质，更不是出于万物的创造者。恶乃是人滥用自由，表现为自私或自爱，以及感性原则对理性的支配。罪既是背离上帝，便产生偶像崇拜。人一旦与上帝疏离，陷入有限与感性之中，就把自然界的力量、必死的人，甚至肉体的情欲奉为神明，阿佛洛狄忒 (Aphrodite) 就是后一种情形。罪不可避免的后果就是死亡与败坏。然而，逻各斯并未离弃人类。他赐给他们律法和先知，为他们预备救恩。最后，他亲自成为人，在人性之中消除了罪与死亡的权势，恢复了上帝的形像，使我们与上帝联合，并将他不朽的生命赐给我们。道成肉身之所以可能且合宜，在于逻各斯与世界原有的关系：世界由他创造，也由他维系。然而，道成肉身并未中止逻各斯对宇宙的统治。当他在人里面的时候，他也同时在万有之中运行，并安居于父的怀中。道成肉身对于救恩的必要性，源于这一事实：败坏已经进入人性本身，因此必须在人性之内加以克服。外在的救赎，例如仅仅宣讲上帝，必毫无益处。“救主正是为此取了人性，使人与生命联合，不再停留于必死的境况和死亡之中，而是领受不朽，藉着复活成为不死。若只从外面宣讲救赎，就不得不不断重复，而死亡仍会留在人里面。”¹² 道成肉身的目的，消极而言，是消灭罪与死亡；积极而言，是赐下公义与生命，并使人神化。¹³ 基督的神迹证明他原本就有统管自然的权柄，并引导人从崇拜自然转向敬拜上帝。耶稣的死，是涂抹罪恶以及在复活中显明他生命大能所必需的；也因此，信徒的死如今不再是刑罚，而是通向复活与荣耀的过渡。——亚他那修以基督教持续产生的道德果效，来支持他对道成肉身的这一思辨分析：基督教每日都在成就大事，呼召人离弃偶像崇拜、魔法和巫术，转而敬拜真神；除去罪恶而不合理性的情欲，驯服野蛮人的粗野风俗，激励人过圣洁的生活，将人对死亡的天然恐惧变为欢喜，并使人的目光从地上转向天上，从必死的生命转向复活与永恒的荣耀。道成肉身所带来的恩惠不可胜数，犹如海浪前后相逐，绵延不息。

（2）在君士坦丁诸子统治时期，343至350年之间，尤利乌斯·菲尔米库斯·马特尔努斯 (Julius Firmicus Maternus)——一位除此之外我们一无所知的作者¹⁴——凭借广博的古代知识，却怀着狂热的激情，著书攻击异教。他时而依据欧赫迈罗斯 (Euhemerus) 的原则，把异教看作对必死之人和自然元素的神化，时而又把它看作对圣经历史的歪曲。¹⁵ 在结尾处，他全然误解了新约温柔的精神，敦促君士坦丁诸子以武力根除异教，正如上帝命令以色列人对付迦南人那样；他还公然劝他们大胆劫掠庙宇，用抢来的财物使自己和教会富足起来。这种护教方式，与君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 的专横行径完全相应；而正是这种行径，引发了尤利安 (Julian) 治下异教的反扑。

（3）尤利安对基督教的攻击，并未立即得到回应，¹⁶ 但后来出现了几部驳斥之作，其中最主要的是亚历山大的区利罗 (Cyril of Alexandria，卒于444年) 所著十卷本《驳不敬神的尤利安》，此书至今尚存，属于他最有价值的著作之列。约在同一时期，狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 写了一部兼具护教与论战性质的著作：《医治异教的病症》，共十二篇。他在其中将圣经的预言与神迹同异教的神谕相比较，将使徒同古代的英雄和立法者相比较，将基督教的道德同异教世界的败德相比较，力图以此驳斥虚假宗教的谬误。

§ 12. 奥古斯丁的《上帝之城》；萨尔维安

（4）在拉丁护教家中，我们必须提到五世纪的奥古斯丁 (Augustine)、奥罗修斯 (Orosius) 和萨尔维安 (Salvianus)。他们走了一条不同于希腊人的道路，主要致力于回应异教徒的一项非难：罗马帝国的灾难与衰落，应当归咎于偶像崇拜的倾覆和基督教的兴起。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 早已触及这一非难，但如今，由于蛮族屡次入侵，尤其是哥特王阿拉里克 (Alaric) 于410年攻陷并洗劫罗马城，这一非难又以格外强烈之势出现。为了从历史上加以驳斥，西班牙长老奥罗修斯应奥古斯丁的建议，于417年写了一部世界通史纲要。

奥古斯丁本人则以其不朽著作《上帝之城》回应这一指控；所谓上帝之城，就是基督的教会。全书二十二卷，他从413年至426年，在民族大迁徙的风暴之中、临近一生终点之时，为此辛勤工作了十二年。他并非不欣赏古罗马的美德，并将帝国昔日的强盛归功于这些美德，又将帝国日益衰弱归咎于这些美德的衰退。但与此同时，他远远超越了那种以世俗的得失和暂时的成败衡量人物与事物的肤浅见解。《上帝之城》是古代教会留给我们的驳斥异教、捍卫基督教的著作中最有力、最全面、最深刻、最富启发性的一部，为教会与希腊罗马异教在著述领域的争战作了相称的收束。¹⁷ 它既是为行将消逝的异教普世帝国所作的庄严悼词，也是对即将到来的基督教普世秩序所致的崇高颂辞。甚至哲罗姆 (Jerome) 也因罗马城的毁灭而哀叹帝国倾覆，视之为世界末日临近的预兆；¹⁸ 这位非洲教父却只把它看作一场暂时的变革，为基督教新的征服预备道路。他站在历史上这一非凡的转折点，考察这世上必朽之国与上帝不朽之国的起源、进程和终局，从人的堕落直到最后的审判；届时，两国终于完全而永远地分开，分别归于地狱与天堂。两城的对立，根源于灵界最高层次中善天使与恶天使的分别；其历史演变始于该隐与亚伯，继而随着异教与犹太教的发展，延续至基督降生，并在这一伟大时代之后继续下去，直到他在荣耀中再来。总体而言，他的历史哲学是二元论的，未能上升到上帝计划的统一性与包容性；在这一计划中，世上的万国，甚至撒但本身，都被置于服事上帝旨意的地位。他把一座城交给上帝，把另一座城交给群魔。不过，他明确承认前者之中也有阴影，后者之中也有光芒，由此缓和了这一对照的严峻性。在现今世界的秩序中，两城在无数地方彼此接触、相互影响；正如并非所有犹太人都是天上耶路撒冷的公民，另一方面，异教徒中也散居着上帝真正的儿女，如麦基洗德和约伯。他们不是藉着有形的纽带，而是藉着无形的、属天的纽带，与上帝之城联合。奥古斯丁在这一宏伟的对照中，编织进了自己全部的圣经与古代知识、思辨和基督徒经验，却也夹杂了许多任意的寓意奇想和空洞的细微辨析。前十卷旨在攻击异教，指出罗马势力的逐渐衰落，是偶像崇拜和道德瓦解过程的必然结果；这一过程始于迦太基 (Carthage) 毁灭之后外来恶习的传入。他把帝国的灾难和迫近的灭亡，描绘为向异教徒发出的强有力的悔改宣告，同时也是对基督徒有益的试炼，以及一个新创造诞生前的阵痛。在这部历史悲剧的最后十二卷中，他以另一幅图景与之对照：那超自然的上帝之国建立在磐石之上，从时间中的一切风暴与变革中焕然一新、愈益坚强地显现出来，将不朽的神圣生命注入日渐衰残的人类之中；最终，在完成这地上的工作之后，进入永恒的安息。在那里，信徒将安息并观看，观看并爱，爱并赞美，永无穷尽。¹⁹

高卢长老萨尔维安 (Salvianus) 论上帝的护理与世界治理的护教著作，虽不如前者重要，却仍值得注意，且独具特色。²⁰ 此书约写于五世纪中叶（440—455年），既为回应基督教招致当时一切灾祸的指控，也为解答基督徒自身日益滋长的、对上帝护理的疑惑。不过，他将上帝降下审判的罪责，不归于异教徒，而归于当时的基督教；他以强劲生动、却又浮夸过甚的文风，将基督徒的道德状况描绘得极其恶劣，尤其是高卢、西班牙、意大利和非洲的基督徒。他对基督教的辩护，或者更确切地说，对基督徒所信上帝治理世界这一信念的辩护，同时也是对堕落基督徒的抨击。这种辩护固然不宜用来使异教徒归信，却很适合唤醒教会，使她注意内部更危险的仇敌，并激励她在道德上自我改革，为战胜外敌的胜利加上冠冕。这位当代的耶利米说：“教会本当处处使上帝息怒，如今所做的，除了惹他发怒，还有什么呢？²¹ 即使在教会中，又能遇见多少人，不仍是酒徒、放荡者、奸夫、淫乱者、强盗、凶手，或诸如此类的人，甚至兼有这一切无穷恶行的人呢？在基督徒中，少作些恶，竟也算是一种圣洁了。”他继续说，他们参加完公共敬拜，甚至几乎还在敬拜之时，就转去行可耻之事。富人几乎没有不愿杀人和行淫的。我们已经丧失了基督教的全部力量，而且因为我们以基督徒的身份犯罪，就更加得罪上帝。我们比蛮族和异教徒还坏。撒克逊人 (Saxon) 若是狂野，法兰克人 (Frank) 若是背信，哥特人 (Goth) 若是残忍，阿兰人 (Alanian) 若是酗酒，匈人 (Hun) 若是淫荡，他们因无知而应受的刑罚，远轻于我们这些明知上帝诫命、却犯下这一切罪行的人。他将基督徒，尤其是罗马的基督徒，同信奉阿里乌派 (Arian) 的哥特人和汪达尔人 (Vandals) 相比较，对罗马人作出不利的评断：他们在出于本性的粗鄙罪恶之外，又加上了文明所滋生的精致恶习——迷恋戏剧、荒淫放荡，以及违背自然的淫行。因此，公义的上帝把他们交在蛮族手中，使他们遭受迁徙部族的蹂躏。

这幅描绘五世纪基督教世界的可怕图景，无疑在许多方面因禁欲主义和修道主义的热忱而有所夸大。然而，总的说来，它并非不真实；它展现了图景的阴暗面，使我们能够从道德和心理的根由上，更充分地理解西罗马帝国的最终解体。

Original Text

CHAPTER II. THE LITERARY TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY OVER GREEK AND ROMAN HEATHENISM.

§ 8. Heathen Polemics. New Objections.

I. Comp. The sources at §§ 4 and 5, especially the writings of Julian The Apostate Katav Cristianw'n, and Libanius, uJpe;r tw'n iJerw'n. Also Pseudo-lucian: Philopatris (of the age of Julian or later, comprised in the works of Lucian). Proclus (412–487): xviii ejpiceirhvmata katav cristianw'n (preserved in the counter work of Joh. Philoponus: De aeternitate mundi, ed. Venet. 1535). In part also the historical works of Eunapius and Zosimus.

2. Marqu. d’Argens: defense du paganisme par l’emper. Julien en grec et en franc. (collected from fragments in Cyril), avec des dissertat. Berl. 1764, sec. ed. Augmentée, 1767. This singular work gave occasion to two against it by G. Fr. Meier, Halle, 1764, And W. Crichton, Halle, 1765, in which the arguments of Julian were refuted anew. Nath. Lardner, in his learned collection of ancient heathen testimonies for the credibility of the Gospel History, treats also largely of Julian. See his collected works, ed. by Dr. Kippis, Lond. 1838, vol. vii. p. 581–652. Schröckh: vi. 354–385. Neander: iii. 77 sqq. (Engl. transl. of Torrey ii. 84–93).

The internal conflict between heathenism and Christianity presents the same spectacle of dissolution on the one hand and conscious power on the other. And here the Nicene age reaped the fruit of the earlier apologists, who ably and fearlessly defended the truth of the true religion and refuted the errors of idolatry in the midst of persecution.(1) The literary opposition to Christianity had already virtually exhausted itself, and was now thrown by the great change of circumstances into apology for heathenism; while what was then apology on the Christian side now became triumphant polemics. The last enemy was the Neo-Platonic philosophy, as taught particularly in the schools of Alexandria and Athens even down to the fifth century. This philosophy, however, as we have before remarked,(2) was no longer the product of pure, fresh heathenism, but an artificial syncretism of elements heathen and Christian, Oriental and Hellenic, speculative and theurgic, evincing only the growing weakness of the old religion and the irresistible power of the new.

Besides the old oft-refuted objections, sundry new ones came forward after the time of Constantine, in some cases the very opposite of the earlier ones, touching not so much the Christianity of the Bible as more or less the state-church system of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, and testifying the intrusion of heathen elements into the church. Formerly simplicity and purity of morals were the great ornament of the Christians over against the prevailing corruption; now it could be justly observed that, as the whole world had crowded into the church, it had let in also all the vices of the world. Against those vices, indeed, the genuine virtues of Christianity proved themselves as vigorous as ever. But the heathen either could not or would not look through the outward appearance and discriminate the wheat from the chaff. Again: the Christians of the first three centuries had confessed their faith at the risk of life, maintained it under sufferings and death, and claimed only toleration; now they had to meet reproach from the heathen minority for hypocrisy, selfishness, ambition, intolerance, and the spirit of persecution against heathens, Jews, and heretics. From being suspected as enemies to the emperor and the empire, they now came to be charged in various ways with servile and fawning submission to the Christian rulers. Formerly known as abhorring every kind of idolatry and all pomp in worship, they now appeared in their growing veneration for martyrs and relics to reproduce and even exceed the ancient worship of heroes.

Finally, even the victory of Christianity was branded as a reproach. It was held responsible by the latest heathen historians not only for the frequent public calamities, which had been already charged upon it under Marcus Aurelius and in the time of Tertullian, but also for the decline and fall of the once so mighty Roman empire. But this objection, very popular at the time, is refuted by the simple fact, that the empire in the East, where Christianity earlier and more completely prevailed, outlived by nearly ten centuries the western branch. The dissolution of the west-Roman empire was due rather to its unwieldy extent, the incursion of barbarians, and the decay of morals, which was hastened by the introduction of all the vices of conquered nations, and which had already begun under Augustus, yea, during the glorious period of the republic; for the republic would have lasted much longer if the foundations of public and private virtue had not been undermined.(3) Taken from a higher point of view, the downfall of Rome was a divine judgment upon the old essentially heathen world, as the destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment upon the Jewish nation for their unbelief. But it was at the same time the inevitable transition to a new creation which Christianity soon began to rear on the ruins of heathendom by the conversion of the barbarian conquerors, and the founding of a higher Christian civilization. This was the best refutation of the last charge of the heathen opponents of the religion of the cross.

§ 9. Julian’s Attack upon Christianity.

For Literature comp. § 4 p. 39, 40.

The last direct and systematic attack upon the Christian religion proceeded from the emperor Julian. In his winter evenings at Antioch in 363, to account to the whole world for his apostasy, he wrote a work against the Christians, which survives, at least in fragments, in a refutation of it by Cyril of Alexandria, written about 432. In its three books, perhaps seven (Cyril mentions only three(4)), it shows no trace of the dispassionate philosophical or historical appreciation of so mighty a phenomenon as Christianity in any case is. Julian had no sense for the fundamental ideas of sin and redemption or the cardinal virtues of humility and love. He stood entirely in the sphere of naturalism, where the natural light of Helios outshines the mild radiance of the King of truth, and the admiration of worldly greatness leaves no room for the recognition of the spiritual glory of self-renunciation. He repeated the arguments of a Celsus and a Porphyry in modified form; expanded them by his larger acquaintance with the Bible, which he had learned according to the letter in his clerical education; and breathed into all the bitter hatred of an Apostate, which agreed ill with his famous toleration and entirely blinded him to all that was good in his opponents. He calls the religion of "the Galilean" an impious human invention and a conglomeration of the worst elements of Judaism and heathenism without the good of either; that is, without the wholesome though somewhat harsh discipline of the former, or the pious belief in the gods, which belongs to the latter. Hence he compares the Christians to leeches, which draw all impure blood and leave the pure. In his view, Jesus, "the dead Jew," did nothing remarkable during his lifetime, compared with heathen heroes, but to heal lame and blind people and exorcise daemoniacs, which is no very great matter.(5) He was able to persuade only a few of the ignorant peasantry, not even to gain his own kinsmen.(6) Neither Matthew, nor. Mark, nor Luke, nor Paul called him God. John was the first to venture so far, and procured acceptance for his view by a cunning artifice.(7) The later Christians perverted his doctrine still more impiously, and have abandoned the Jewish sacrificial worship and ceremonial law, which was given for all time, and was declared irrevocable by Jesus himself.(8) A universal religion, with all the peculiarities of different national characters, appeared to him unreasonable and impossible. He endeavored to expose all manner of contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. The Mosaic history of the creation was defective, and not to be compared with the Platonic. Eve was given to Adam for a help, yet she led him astray. Human speech is put into the mouth of the serpent, and the curse is denounced on him, though he leads man on to the knowledge of good and evil, and thus proves himself of great service. Moses represents God as jealous, teaches monotheism, yet polytheism also in calling the angels gods. The moral precepts of the decalogue are found also among the heathen, except the commands, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and, "Remember the Sabbath day." He prefers Lycurgus and Solon to Moses. As to Samson and David, they were not very remarkable for valor, and exceeded by many Greeks and Egyptians, and all their power was confined within the narrow limits of Judea. The Jews never had any general equal to Alexander or Caesar. Solomon is not to be compared with Theognis, Socrates, and other Greek sages; moreover he is said to have been overcome by women, and therefore does not deserve to be ranked among wise men. Paul was an arch-traitor; calling God now the God of the Jews, now the God of the Gentiles, now both at once; not seldom contradicting the Old Testament, Christ, and himself, and generally accommodating his doctrine to circumstances. The heathen emperor thinks it absurd that Christian baptism should be able to cleanse from gross sins, while it cannot remove a wart, or gout, or any bodily evil. He puts the Bible far below the Hellenic literature, and asserts, that it made men slaves, while the study of the classics educated great heroes and philosophers. The first Christians he styles most contemptible men, and the Christians of his day he charges with ignorance, intolerance, and worshipping dead persons, bones, and the wood of the cross.

With all his sarcastic bitterness against Christianity, Julian undesignedly furnishes some valuable arguments for the historical character of the religion he hated and assailed. The learned and critical Lardner, after a careful analysis of his work against Christianity, thus ably and truthfully sums up Julian’s testimony in favor of it:

"Julian argues against the Jews as well as against the Christians. He has borne a valuable testimony to the history and to the books of the New Testament, as all must acknowledge who have read the extracts just made from his work. He allows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, at the time of the taxing made in Judea by Cyrenius: that the Christian religion had its rise and began to be propagated in the times of the emperors Tiberius and Claudius. He bears witness to the genuineness and authenticity of the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the Acts of the Apostles: and he so quotes them, as to intimate, that these were the only historical books received by Christians as of authority, and the only authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and the doctrine preached by them. He allows their early date, and even argues for it. He also quotes, or plainly refers to the Acts of the Apostles, to St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. He does not deny the miracles of Jesus Christ, but allows him to have ’healed the blind, and the lame, and demoniacs,’ and ’to have rebuked the winds, and walked upon the waves of the sea.’ He endeavors indeed to diminish these works; but in vain. The consequence is undeniable: such works are good proofs of a divine mission. He endeavors also to lessen the number of the early believers in Jesus, and yet he acknowledgeth, that there were ’multitudes of such men in Greece and Italy,’ before St. John wrote his gospel. He likewise affects to diminish the quality of the early believers; and yet acknowledgeth, that beside ’menservants, and maidservants,’ Cornelius, a Roman centurion at Caesarea, and Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, were converted to the faith of Jesus before the end of the reign of Claudius. And he often speaks with great indignation of Peter and Paul, those two great apostles of Jesus, and successful preachers of his gospel. So that, upon the whole, he has undesignedly borne witness to the truth of many things recorded in the books of the New Testament: he aimed to overthrow the Christian religion, but has confirmed it: his arguments against it are perfectly harmless, and insufficient to unsettle the weakest Christian. He justly excepts to some things introduced into the Christian profession by the late professors of it, in his own time, or sooner; but has not made one objection of moment against the Christian religion, as contained in the genuine and authentic books of the New Testament."(9)

The other works against Christianity are far less important.

The dialogue Philopatris, or The Patriot, is ascribed indeed to the ready scoffer and satirist Lucian (died about 200), and joined to his works; but it is vastly inferior in style and probably belongs to the reign of Julian, or a still later period;(10) since it combats the church doctrine of the Trinity and of the procession of the Spirit from the Father, though not by argument, but only by ridicule. It is a frivolous derision of the character and doctrines of the Christians in the form of a dialogue between Critias, a professed heathen, and Triephon, an Epicurean, personating a Christian. It represents the Christians as disaffected to the government, dangerous to civil society, and delighting in public calamities. It calls St. Paul a half bald, long-nosed Galilean, who travelled through the air to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12, 1–4).

The last renowned representative of Neo-Platonism, Proclus of Athens (died 487), defended the Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the world, and, without mentioning Christianity, contested the biblical doctrine of the creation and the end of the world in eighteen arguments, which the Christian philosopher, John Philoponus, refuted in the seventh century.

The last heathen historians, Eunapius and Zosimus, of the first half of the fifth century, indirectly assailed Christianity by a one-sided representation of the history of the Roman empire from the time of Constantine, and by tracing its decline to the Christian religion; while, on the contrary, Ammianus Marcellinus (died about 390) presents with honorable impartiality both the dark and the bright sides of the Christian emperors and of the Apostate Julian.(11)

§ 10. The Heathen Apologetic Literature.

After the death of Julian most of the heathen writers, especially the ablest and most estimable, confined themselves to the defence of their religion, and thus became, by reason of their position, advocates of toleration; and, of course, of toleration for the religious syncretism, which in its cooler form degenerates into philosophical indifferentism.

Among these were Themistius, teacher of rhetoric, senator, and prefect of Constantinople, and afterwards preceptor of the young emperor Arcadius; Aurelius Symmachus, rhetorician, senator, and prefect of Rome under Gratian and Valentinian II., the eloquent pleader for the altar of Victoria; and above all, the rhetorician Libanius, friend and admirer of Julian, alternately teaching in Constantinople, Nicomedia, and Antioch. These all belong to the second half of the fourth century, and represent at once the last bloom and the decline of the classic eloquence. They were all more or less devoted to the Neo-Platonic syncretism. They held, that the Deity had implanted in all men a religious nature and want, but had left the particular form of worshiping God to the free will of the several nations and individuals; that all outward constraint, therefore, was contrary to the nature of religion and could only beget hypocrisy. Themistius vindicated this variety of the forms of religion as favorable to religion itself, as many Protestants justify the system of sects. "The rivalry of different religions," says he in his oration on Jovian, "serves to stimulate zeal for the worship of God. There are different paths, some hard, others easy, some rough, others smooth, leading to the same goal. Leave only one way, and shut up the rest, and you destroy emulation. God would have no such uniformity among men .... The Lord of the universe delights in manifoldness. It is his will, that Syrians, Greeks, Egyptians should worship him, each nation in its own way, and that the Syrians again should divide into small sects, no one of which agrees entirely with another. Why should we thus enforce what is impossible?" In the same style argues Symmachus, who withholds all direct opposition to Christianity and contends only against its exclusive supremacy.

Libanius, in his plea for the temples addressed to Theodosius I. (384 or 390), called to his aid every argument, religious, political, and artistic, in behalf of the heathen sanctuaries, but interspersed bitter remarks against the temple-storming monks. He asserts among other things, that the principles of Christianity itself condemn the use of force in religion, and commend the indulgence of free conviction.

Of course this heathen plea for toleration was but the last desperate defence of a hopeless minority, and an indirect self-condemnation of heathenism for its persecution of the Christian religion in the first three centuries.

§ 11. Christian Apologists and Polemics.

Sources.

I. The Greek Apologists: Eusebius Caes.: Proparaskeuh; eujaggelikhv (Preparatio evang.), and !Apovdeixi" eujaggelikhv (Demonstratio evang.); besides his controversial work against Hierocles; and his Theophany, discovered in 1842 in a Syriac version (ed. Lee, Lond. 1842). Athanasius: Kata;tw'n JEllhvnwn (Oratio contra Gentes), and Peri; th'" ejnanqrwphvsew" tou' Lovgou (De incarnatione Verbi Dei): two treatises belonging together (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. i. 1 sqq.). Cyril of Alex.: Contra impium Julianum libri X (with extracts from the three books of Julian against Christianity). Theodoret: Graecarum affectionum curatio ( JEllhnikw'n qerapeutikh; paqhmavtwn), disput. XII.

2. The Latin Apologists: Lactantius: Instit. divin. l. vii (particularly the first three books, de falsa religione, de origine erroris, and de falsa sapientia; the third against the heathen philosophy). Julius Firmicus Maternus: De errore profanarum religionum (not mentioned by the ancients, but edited several times in the sixteenth century, and latterly by F. Münter, Havn. 1826). Ambrose: Ep. 17 and 18 (against Symmachus). Prudentius: In Symmachum (an apologetic poem). Paul. Orosius: Adv. paganos historiarum l. vii (an apologetic universal history, against Eunapius and Zosimus). Augustine: De civitate Dei l. xxii (often separately published). Salvianus: De gubernatione Dei l. viii (the eighth book incomplete).

Modern Literature.

Comp. in part the apologetic literature at § 63 of vol. i. Also Schrökh: vii., p. 263–355. Neander: iii., 188–195 (Engl. ed. of Torrey, ii., 90–93). Döllinger (R.C.): Hdbuch der K. G., vol. I., part 2, p. 50–91.K. Werner (R.C.): Geschichte der Apolog. und polem. Literatur der christl. Theol. Schaffh. 1861–’65, 4 vols. vol. i.

In the new state of things the defence of Christianity was no longer of so urgent and direct importance as it had been before the time of Constantine. And the theological activity of the church now addressed itself mainly to internal doctrinal controversy. Still the fourth and fifth centuries produced several important apologetic works, which far outshone the corresponding literature of the heathen.

1. Under Constantine we have Lactantius in Latin, Eusebius and Athanasius in Greek, representing, together with Theodoret, who was a century later, the close of the older apology.

Lactantius prefaces his vindication of Christian truth with a refutation of the heathen superstition and philosophy; and he is more happy in the latter than in the former. He claims freedom for all religions, and represents the transition standpoint of the Constantinian edicts of toleration.

Eusebius, the celebrated historian, collected with diligence and learning in several apologetic works, above all in his "Evangelic Preparation," the usual arguments against heathenism, and in his "Evangelic Demonstration" the positive evidences of Christianity, laying chief stress upon the prophecies.

With less scholarship, but with far greater speculative compass and acumen, the great Athanasius, in his youthful productions "against the Greeks," and "on the incarnation of the Logos" (before 325), gave in main outline the argument for the divine origin, the truth, the reasonableness, and the perfection of the Christian religion. These two treatises, particularly the second, are, next to Origen’s doctrinal work De principiis, the first attempt to construct a scientific system of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and world, sin and redemption; and they form the ripe fruit of the positive apology in the Greek church. The Logos, Athanasius teaches, is the image of the living, only true God. Man is the image of the Logos. In communion with him consist the original holiness and blessedness of paradise. Man fell by his own will, and thus came to need redemption. Evil is not a substance of itself, not matter, as the Greeks suppose, nor does it come from the Creator of all things. It is an abuse of freedom on the part of man, and consists in selfishness or self-love, and in the dominion of the sensuous principle over the reason. Sin, as apostasy from God, begets idolatry. Once alienated from God and plunged into finiteness and sensuousness, men deified the powers of nature, or mortal men, or even carnal lusts, as in Aphrodite. The inevitable consequence of sin is death and corruption. The Logos, however, did not forsake men. He gave them the law and the prophets to prepare them for salvation. At last he himself became man, neutralized in human nature the power of sin and death, restored the divine image, uniting us with God and imparting to us his imperishable life. The possibility and legitimacy of the incarnation lie in the original relation of the Logos to the world, which was created and is upheld by him. The incarnation, however, does not suspend the universal reign of the Logos. While he was in man, he was at the same time everywhere active and reposing in the bosom of the Father. The necessity of the incarnation to salvation follows from the fact, that the corruption had entered into human nature itself, and thus must be overcome within that nature. An external redemption, as by preaching God, could profit nothing. "For this reason the Saviour assumed humanity, that man, united with life, might not remain mortal and in death, but imbibing immortality might by the resurrection be immortal. The outward preaching of redemption would have to be continually repeated, and yet death would abide in man."(12) The object of the incarnation is, negatively, the annihilation of sin and death; positively, the communication of righteousness and life and the deification of man.(13) The miracles of Christ are the proof of his original dominion over nature, and lead men from nature-worship to the worship of God. The death of Jesus was necessary to the blotting out of sin and to the demonstration of his life-power in the resurrection, whereby also the death of believers is now no longer punishment, but a transition to resurrection and glory.—This speculative analysis of the incarnation Athanasius supports by referring to the continuous moral effects of Christianity, which is doing great things every day, calling man from idolatry, magic, and sorceries to the worship of the true God, obliterating sinful and irrational lusts, taming the wild manners of barbarians, inciting to a holy walk, turning the natural fear of death into rejoicing, and lifting the eye of man from earth to heaven, from mortality to resurrection and eternal glory. The benefits of the incarnation are incalculable, like the waves of the sea pursuing one another in constant succession.

2. Under the sons of Constantine, between the years 343 and 350, Julius Firmicus Maternus, an author otherwise unknown to us,(14) wrote against heathenism with large knowledge of antiquity, but with fanatical zeal, regarding it, now on the principle of Euhemerus, as a deification of mortal men and natural elements, now as a distortion of the biblical history.(15) At the close, quite mistaking the gentle spirit of the New Testament, he urges the sons of Constantine to exterminate heathenism by force, as God commanded the children of Israel to proceed against the Canaanites; and openly counsels them boldly to pillage the temples and to enrich themselves and the church with the stolen goods. This sort of apology fully corresponds with the despotic conduct of Constantius, which induced the reaction of heathenism under Julian.

3. The attack of Julian upon Christianity brought out no reply on the spot,(16) but subsequently several refutations, the chief one by Cyril of Alexandria († 444), in ten books "against the impious Julian," still extant and belonging among his most valuable works. About the same time Theodoret wrote an apologetic and polemic work: "The Healing of the Heathen Affections," in twelve treatises, in which he endeavors to refute the errors of the false religion by comparison of the prophecies and miracles of the Bible with the heathen oracles, of the apostles with the heroes and lawgivers of antiquity, of the Christian morality with the immorality of the heathen world.

§ 12. Augustine’s City of God. Salvianus.

4. Among the Latin apologists we must mention Augustine, Orosius, and Salvianus, of the fifth century. They struck a different path from the Greeks, and devoted themselves chiefly to the objection of the heathens, that the overthrow of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were chargeable with the misfortunes and the decline of the Roman empire. This objection had already been touched by Tertullian, but now, since the repeated incursions of the barbarians, and especially the capture and sacking of the city of Rome under the Gothic king Alaric in 410, it recurred with peculiar force. By way of historical refutation the Spanish presbyter Orosius, at the suggestion of Augustine, wrote an outline of universal history in the year 417.

Augustine himself answered the charge in his immortal work "On the city of God," that is) the church of Christ, in twenty-two books, upon which he labored twelve years, from 413 to 426, amidst the storms of the great migration and towards the close of his life. He was not wanting in appreciation of the old Roman virtues, and he attributes to these the former greatness of the empire, and to the decline of them he imputes her growing weakness. But he rose at the same time far above the superficial view, which estimates persons and things by the scale of earthly profit and loss, and of temporary success. "The City of God" is the most powerful, comprehensive, profound, and fertile production in refutation of heathenism and vindication of Christianity, which the ancient church has bequeathed to us, and forms a worthy close to her literary contest with Graeco-Roman paganism.(17) It is a grand funeral discourse upon the departing universal empire of heathenism, and a lofty salutation to the approaching universal order of Christianity. While even Jerome deplored in the destruction of the city the downfall of the empire as the omen of the approaching doom of the world,(18) the African father saw in it only a passing revolution preparing the way for new conquests of Christianity. Standing at that remarkable turning-point of history, he considers the origin, progress, and end of the perishable kingdom of this world, and the imperishable kingdom of God, from the fall of man to the final judgment, where at last they fully and forever separate into hell and heaven. The antagonism of the two cities has its root in the highest regions of the spirit world, the distinction of good and evil angels; its historical evolution commences with Cain and Abel, then proceeds in the progress of paganism and Judaism to the birth of Christ, and continues after that great epoch to his return in glory. Upon the whole his philosophy of history is dualistic, and does not rise to the unity and comprehensiveness of the divine plan to which all the kingdoms of this world and even Satan himself are made subservient. He hands the one city over to God, the other to the demons. Yet he softens the rigor of the contrast by the express acknowledgment of shades in the one, and rays of light in the other. In the present order of the world the two cities touch and influence each other at innumerable points; and as not all Jews were citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, so there were on the other hand true children of God scattered among the heathen like Melchisedek and Job, who were united to the city of God not by a visible, but by an invisible celestial tie. In this sublime contrast Augustine weaves up the whole material of his Scriptural and antiquarian knowledge, his speculation, and his Christian experience, but interweaves also many arbitrary allegorical conceits and empty subtleties. The first ten books he directs against heathenism, showing up the gradual decline of the Roman power as the necessary result of idolatry and of a process of moral dissolution, which commenced with the introduction of foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage; and he represents the calamities and approaching doom of the empire as a mighty preaching of repentance to the heathen, and at the same time as a wholesome trial of the Christians, and as the birth-throes of a new creation. In the last twelve books of this tragedy of history he places in contrast the picture of the supernatural state of God, founded upon a rock, coming forth renovated and strengthened from all the storms and revolutions of time, breathing into wasting humanity an imperishable divine life, and entering at last, after the completion of this earthly work, into the sabbath of eternity, where believers shall rest and see, see and love, love and praise, without end.(19)

Less important, but still noteworthy and peculiar, is the apologetic work of the Gallic presbyter, Salvianus, on providence and the government of the world.(20) It was composed about the middle of the fifth century (440–455) in answer at once to the charge that Christianity occasioned all the misfortunes of the times, and to the doubts concerning divine providence, which were spreading among Christians themselves. The blame of the divine judgments he places, however, not upon the heathens, but upon the Christianity of the day, and, in forcible and lively, but turgid and extravagant style, draws an extremely unfavorable picture of the moral condition of the Christians, especially in Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Africa. His apology for Christianity, or rather for the Christian faith in the divine government of the world, was also a polemic against the degenerate Christians. It was certainly unsuited to convert heathens, but well fitted to awaken the church to more dangerous enemies within, and stimulate her to that moral self-reform, which puts the crown upon victory over outward foes. "The church," says this Jeremiah of his time, "which ought everywhere to propitiate God, what does she, but provoke him to anger?(21) How many may one meet, even in the church, who are not still drunkards, or debauchees, or adulterers, or fornicators, or robbers, or murderers, or the like, or all these at once, without end? It is even a sort of holiness among Christian people, to be less vicious." From the public worship of God, he continues, and almost during it, they pass to deeds of shame. Scarce a rich man, but would commit murder and fornication. We have lost the whole power of Christianity, and offend God the more, that we sin as Christians. We are worse than the barbarians and heathen. If the Saxon is wild, the Frank faithless, the Goth inhuman, the Alanian drunken, the Hun licentious, they are by reason of their ignorance far less punishable than we, who, knowing the commandments of God, commit all these crimes. He compares the Christians especially of Rome with the Arian Goths and Vandals, to the disparagement of the Romans, who add to the gross sins of nature the refined vices of civilization, passion for theatres, debauchery, and unnatural lewdness. Therefore has the just God given them into the hands of the barbarians and exposed them to the ravages of the migrating hordes.

This horrible picture of the Christendom of the fifth century is undoubtedly in many respects an exaggeration of ascetic and monastic zeal. Yet it is in general not untrue; it presents the dark side of the picture, and enables us to understand more fully on moral and psychological grounds the final dissolution of the western empire of Rome.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 108): Comp. vol. i. §§ 60-66.

(2; original 109): Comp. § 4 (p. 42), and vol. i. § 61.

(3; original 110): Gibbon, too, imputes the fall of the west-Roman empire not, as unjustly charged by Dr. Kurtz (Handbuch der allg. Kirchengesch. i. 2, p. 15, 3d ed.), to Christianity, but almost solely to the pressure of its own weight. Comp. his General Observations on the Fall of the R. Empire in the West, at the close of ch. xxxviii., where he says: "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long." Gibbon then mentions Christianity also, it is true, or more properly monasticism, which, he thinks, suppressed with its passive virtues the patriotic and martial spirit, and so far contributed to the catastrophe; but adds: "If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened [—he says not: caused—]by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors." This view is very different from that of Eunapius and Zosimus, with which Kurtz identifies it. Gibbon in general follows more closely Ammianus Marcellinus, whom, with all reason, he holds as a historian far superior to the others.—Lord Byron truthfully expresses the law of decay to which Rome succumbed, in these words from Childe Harold:

"There is the moral of all human tales;

’T is but the same rehearsal of the past:

First freedom, and then glory—when that fails,

Wealth, vice, corruption, barbarism at last."

(4; original 111): In the preface to his refutation, Contra Jul. i. p. 3: Triva suggevgraye bibliva kata; tw'n aJgivwn eujaggelivwn kai; kata; th'" eujagou'" tw'n Cristianw'n qrhskeiva". But Jerome says, Epist. 83 (tom. iv. p. 655): " Julianus Augustus septem libros, in expeditione Parthica [or rather before he left Antioch and started for Persia], adversus Christianos vomuit."

(5; original 112): Cyril has omitted the worst passages of Julian respecting Christ, but quotes the following (Contra Jul. l. vi. p. 191, ed. Spanh.), which is very characteristic: "Jesus, who over-persuaded much (ajnapeivsa") the lowest among you, some few, has now been talked of (ojnomavzetai) for three hundred years, though during his life he performed nothing worth mentioning (oujde;n ajkoh'" a[xion), unless it be thought a mighty matter to heal the cripples and blind persons and to exorcise those possessed of demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany (eij mhv ti" ei[etai tou;" kollou;" kai; tou;" tuflou;" iavsasqai, kai; daimonwvnta" ejforkivzein ejn Bhqseivda/ kai; ejn Bhqaniva/ tai'" kwvmai" tw'n megivstwn e[rgwn ei'nai )" Dr. Lardner has ingeniously inferred from this passage that, Julian, by conceding to Christ the power of working miracles, and admitting the general truths of the gospel traditions, furnishes an argument for Christianity rather than against it.

(6; original 113): Jno. vii. 5.

(7; original 114): "Neither Paul," he says (Cyr. l. x. p. 327), "nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark has dared to call Jesus God. But honest John (oJ crhstovs jIwavnnh"), understanding that a great multitude of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were seized with this distemper; and hearing likewise, as I suppose, that the tombs of Peter and Paul were respected, and frequented, though as yet privately only, however, having heard of it, he then first presumed to advance that doctrine."

(8; original 115): Matt. v. 17-19.

(9; original 116): Dr. Nathiel Lardner’s Works, ed. by Dr. Kippis in ten vols. Vol. vii. pp. 638 and 639. As against the mythical theory of Strauss and Renan the extract from Lardner has considerable force, as well as his whole work on the credibility of the Gospel History.

(10; original 117): According to Niebuhr’s view it must have been composed under the emperor Phocas, 968 or 969. Moyle places it in the year 302, Dodwell in the year 261, others in the year 272.

(11; original 118): The more is it to be regretted, that the fisrt thirteen books of his history of the Roman emperors from Nerva to 353 arelost. The remaining eighteen books reach from 353 to 378.

(12; original 119): De incarn. c. 44 (Opera ed. Bened. i. p. 86).

(13; original 120): JO Lovgo" ejnanqrwvphsen, i]na hJmei'" qeopoihqw'men.

(14; original 121): It is uncertain whether he was the author of a mathematical and astrological work written some years earlier and published at Basel in 1551, which treats of the influence of the stars upon men, but conjures its readers not to divulge these Egyptian and Babylonian mysteries, as astrology was forbidden at the time. If he were the author, he must have not only wholly changed his religion, but considerably improved his style.

(15; original 122): The Egyptian Serapis, for instance, was no other than Joseph, who, being the grand-son of Sara, was named Sara'" ajpov.

(16; original 123): Though Apollinaris wrote a book "Of the Truth" against the emperor and the heathen philosophers, of which Julian is reported to have said sneeringly: jAnevgnwn, e[gnwn, katevgnwn:"I have read it, understood it, and condemned it." To which the Christian bishops rejoined in like tone: jAnevgnw", ajllj aujk e[gnw" , eij gavr e[gnw" oujk a[n katevgnw": "You have read, but not understood, for, had you understood you would not have condemned." So says Sozomen: v. 18. Comp. Schröckh: vi. 355.

(17; original 124): Milman says (l.c. book iii. ch. 10) The City of God was unquestionably the noblest work, both in its original design and in the fulness of its elaborate execution, which the genius of man had as yet contributed to the support of Christianity."

(18; original 125): Proleg. in Ezek.: In una urbe totus orbis interiit. Epist. 60: Quid salvum est, si Roma perit!

(19; original 126): "Ibi vacabimus, " reads the conclusion, l. xxii. c. 30, "et videbimus; videbimus, et amabimus; amabimus, et laudabimus. Ecce quod erit in fine sine fine. Nam quia alius noster est finis, nisi pervenire ad regnum, cuius nullus est finis." Tillemont and Schröckh give an extended analysis of the Civitas Dei. So also more recently Dr. Baur in his work on the Christian church from the fourth to the sixth century, pp. 43-52. Gibbon, on the other hand, whose great history treats in some sense, though in totally different form and in opposite spirit, the same theme, only touches this work incidentally, notwithstanding his general minuteness. He says in a contemptuous tone, that his knowledge of Augustine is limited to the "Confessions," and the "City of God." Of course Augustine’s philosophy of history is almost as flatly opposed to the deism of the English historian, as to the heathen views of his contemporaries Ammianus, Eunapius, and Zosimus.

(20; original 127): Of this book: "De gubernatione Dei, et de justo Dei praesentique judicio," Isaac Taylor has made very large use in his interesting work on "Ancient Christianity" (vol. ii. p. 34 sqq.), to refute the idealized Puseyite view of the Nicene and post-Nicene age. But he ascribes too great importance to it, and forgets that it is an unbalanced picture of the shady side of the church at that time. It is true as far as it goes, and yet leaves a false impression. There are books which by a partial and one-sided representation make even the truth lie.

(21; original 128): "Ipsa Dei ecclesia quae in omnibus esse debet placatrix Dei, quid est aliud quam exacerbatrix Dei? aut, praeter paucissimos quosdam, qui mala fugiunt, quid est aliud pene omnis coetus Christianorum, quam sentina vitiorum?" (P. 91.)

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。