Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical history of Christian literature and doctrine, from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council"

See other formats 


'/y.  v.._. 


■^^^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

University  of  Toronto 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalhistory01dona 


A    CRITICAL    HISTOEY 


OF 


CHEISTIAN  LITEEATTJEE  AND  DOCTEINE 

FROM   THE    DEATH   OF  THE  APOSTLES 
TO  THE  NICENE   COUNCIL. 


^ 


A   CRITICAL    HISTORY 


OF 


CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE 
AND   DOCTEINE 

FKOM  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  APOSTLES  TO 
THE  NICENE  COUNCIL. 


JAMES   DONALDSON,  M.A. 


VOL.  L 
THi:   AFOSTOLICAL    FATHERS, 


MACMILLAN   AND   CO. 
1864 


In  the  Press 

VOLUMES  SECOND  AND  THIRD,  containing  "  THE  APO- 
LOGISTS." In  these  the  Life,  Writings,  and  Theological 
Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus, 
Hegesippus,  Melito,  and  others  of  the  same  age,  are  discussed. 


OXFORD; 

BY    T.  COMBE,  M.A.,    E.  TICKARD    HALL,    AND    H.   LATHAM,  M.A. 


PRINTBRS  TO  THR  IMVKRSITV. 


TO 

JOHN    STUAKT    BLACKIE, 

PROFESSOR    OF   GREEK    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    EDINBURGH, 
THIS    BOOK 

FROM    FEELINGS    OF    AFFECTION^    GRATITUDE, 

AND    ADMIRATION, 

BY     HIS    OLD     PUPIL, 

THE    AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Page 
Chap.   I.     Advantages  of  the  Study  of  early  Christian 

Literature           .....  3 
II.     Principles    of    Criticism — External    Testi- 
mony             .          .          .          .          .  10 

III.  Internal  Evidence      .         .         .         .         .  21 

IV.  The  Literature  of  the  Subject      .          .          .  27 
V.     The  Tubingen  School          ....  36 

VI.     Early  Christian  Theology — Mode  of  Treat- 
ment    .......  46 

VII.     Historical  Survey  of  the  Mode  of  Treatment  54 

BOOK  I.    THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS. 


Chap.  I. 

Introduction      .... 

8r 

II. 

Clemens  Romanus 

90 

III. 

Polycarp            .... 

154 

TV. 

The  Epistle  of  Barnabas     . 

201 

V. 

The  Pastor  of  Hermas 

255 

VI. 

Papias 

312 

w 


INTEODUCTION. 


VOL.  I. 


CHAPTER    I. 

ADVANTAGES  OF  THE  STUDY  OF  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE. 

.1  HIS  work  professes  to  be  a  Critical  History  of  Christian 
Literature  and  Theology  from  the  death  of  the  Apostles  till 
the  period  of  the  Nicene  Council.  It  is  an  attempt  to  investi- 
gate the  authorship  of  the  various  works  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  that  era,  and  to  ascertain  the  influences 
which  led  to  their  production  and  determined  their  character. 
It  also  makes  an  effort  to  state  exactly  what  were  the  theo- 
logical opinions  of  each  writer.  The  work  is  therefore  an 
introduction  to  the  study  of  the  Christian  writers,  and  pre- 
pares the  way  for  a  full  consideration  of  the  mode  in  which 
Christian  theology  was  developed. 

Such  studies  as  these  ought  not  to  require  any  defence  in 
the  present  day.  Men  have  generally  come  to  recognise  the 
fact  that  every  period  of  history  contains  a  message  from 
God  to  man,  and  that  it  is  of  vast  importance  to  find  out  what 
that  message  is.  Moreover  it  is  ever  a  valuable  exercise  of 
the  mind,  to  throw  oneself  into  modes  of  thought  and  feeling 
widely  different  from  our  own.  If  we  conduct  our  study  in 
an  honest  spirit,  we  come  forth  from  it  more  conscious  of  our 
own  ignorance  and  weakness,  and  consequently  much  more 
charitable  towards  the  failings  of  others.  At  the  same  time, 
our  whole  range  of  thought  is  widened. 

These  advantages  flow  in  an  especial  manner  from  the  un- 
prejudiced study  of  early  Christian  literature.    The  point  from 

B  2 


■\  INTRODTJCTION.  [Chap. 

which  we  start  is  the  most  momentous  in  the  world's  history. 
The  tart  \\\\\kA\  we  liave  to  consider  is  the  j^reatest.  Even  to 
the  most  callous  mind  Christianity  must  appear  a  movement 
of  gigantic  importance.  The  student  of  early  Christian  lite- 
rature traces  this  great  moral  movement  in  the  words  of  those 
whd  were  inlhienccd  by  it.  He  as  it  were  speaks  with  those 
who  felt  the  first  waves  of  the  Spirit's  influence;  and  he 
cxauiines  their  modes  of  thought  that  he  may  see  how 
Christ's  Gospel  changed  their  whole  beings  and  how  in  con- 
sequence they  worked  in  and  on  the  world.  At  the  same 
time  he  has  to  rid  himself  of  most  of  his  modern  associations. 
lie  has  to  transport  himself  into  a. time  when  the  very  modes 
of  conception  and  expression  were  wndely  different  from  those 
of  this  agCj  and  he  has  to  realize  a  thousand  influences  which 
acted  most  powerfully  on  them,  but  which  have  now  vanished 
for  ever.  If  he  really  feels  that  he  is  of  one  spirit  with  those 
old  workers  for  Christ,  if  he  is  ready  to  stretch  forth  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  to  them,  his  sj'mpathies  will  flow  largely 
u*ith  most  divisions  of  the  present  Christian  Church,  however 
diverse  on  some  points  their  beliefs. 

A  work  like  the  present,  as  however  being  merely  an  in- 
troduction to  this  profitable  study,  is  necessarily  defective 
in  several  aspects. 

It  is  defective  in  that  it  has  to  deal  with  the  lives  of  those 
earnest  men  in  a  purely  critical  manner.  It  has  to  examine 
carefully  every  statement  made  in  regard  to  them — it  has  to 
weigh  the  credibility  of  it ;  and  thus  it  sifts  the  true  from 
the  false.  It  cannot  therefore  in  man}'  instances  attempt  a 
portraiture  of  the  men  as  they  lived  and  moved. 

Besides  this,  the  actual  life  of  those  men  cannot  be  properly 
realized  unless  we  realize  the  heathenism  in  the  midst  of 
which  the}'  lived  and  worked.  A  man's  history  is  not  merely 
an  account  of  his  religious  life,  but  must  embrace  the  whole  of 
his  relations,  his  political  and  intellectual  aims  and  struggles. 
Still  more  so  is  this  the  case  with  the  history  of  an  age. 
And  so  in  truth  the  history  of  the  Church  fails  to  be  a  true 
history,  if  we  cannot  bring  up  before  our  minds  the  physical. 


I]  rXTRODUCTIOy.  5 

intelleelual,  and  political  features  of  the  ages  in  which  tlie 
Church  is  depicted  as  living-  and  acting ». 

Yet  no  satisfactory  History  of  the  Churchy  either  by  itself  oi* 
as  working  amidst  heathenism,  is  possible  without  such  preli- 
minary works  as  the  present.  Literary  criticism  is  the  founda- 
tion on  which  ecclesiastical  histories  must  rest.  In  a  work 
like  this  we  deal  with  the  sources  from  which  these  histories 
derive  their  materials.  We  try  to  ascertain  how  far  they  are 
trustworthy.  Unless  this  introductory  work  is  carefully  done, 
the  history  will  rest  on  an  insecure  foundation.  In  no  de- 
partment of  study  has  the  character  of  the  authorities  been 
less  sifted,  and  most  histories  of  the  Church  abound  in  base- 
less statements  and  serious  misrepresentations.  Even  those 
WTiters  who  have  made  careful  investigations,  as  Mosheim  and 
Neander,  have  often  omitted  to  state  the  reasons  of  their  con- 
clusions, and  the  reader  is  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  historian. 

Still  more  necessary  is  it  that  we  should  have  exact  infor- 
mation as  to  the  opinions  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  Here 
nothing  but  the  utmost  care  and  impartiality  will  enable  us 
to  reach  the  truth.  And  here  the  misconceptions  and  mis- 
takes that  prevail  are  innumerable,  and  act  on  the  present 
Christian  life  with  injurious  effect.  My  main  effort  has  been 
simply  to  record  the  theological  doctrines  of  the  early  Christian 
writers  with  an  anxious  desire  to  state  accurately,  without 
exaggeration  or  distortion,  what  they  thought.  I  have  occa- 
sionally attempted  to  throw  light  on  the  mode  in  which 
doctrines  were  developed.  Let  not  the  reader  however  be 
misled  by  this  word  "  developed.^^  A  statement  of  the  New 
Testament  is  often  said  to  be  the  germ  of  a  doctrine.  The 
image  used  here  is  misleading.  A  doctrine  is  not  a  living 
thing,  like  a  germ.  And  moreover,  even  if  it  were,  it  has  to 
be  remembered  that  even  a  germ  is  developed  by  attracting  and 
assimilating  to  itself  many  foreign  elements  which  are  around  it. 
It  is  by  additions  from  without,  and  different  from  itself,  that 
it  grows.     So  in  the  case  of  a  doctrine.     The  first  statement 

"  See  Stanley's  Introductory  Lectures,  first  published  separately,  and  now 
prefixed  to  his  History  of  the  Eastern  Church. 


6  TXTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

of  it  is  usually  g-encral,  just  as  the  first  perception  of  an  object 
by  the  eye  is  general''.  Thus  we  see  and  know  a  face  before 
we  have  made  any  definite  observation  of  the  colour  of  the 
eyes,  or  the  form  of  the  nose  and  chin.  We  know  that 
the  face  is  beautiful  before  we  have  examined  it  in  detail. 
This  is  the  first  stage  of  the  doctrine,  if  I  may  so  call  it.  But 
we  develope  it  by  ascertaining  exactly  what  is  the  character  of 
each  feature.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  our  developments  may 
be  all  wrong,  while  our  general  statement  is  correct.  I  may 
assert  in  an  indefinite  way  that  Ben  Ledi  is  high.  If  pressed 
for  the  exact  height  in  feet,  I  may  be  unable  to  give  it,  or  if  I 
do  give  it  I  may  be  \\Tong,  and  yet  my  first  statement  is 
quite  correct.  So  in  the  case  of  doctrines.  They  generally 
present  themselves  first  in  history  as  broad  indefinite  truths. 
Subsequent  generations  try  as  it  were  to  fill  up  these  truths 
by  endless  particulars,  explanations,  and  additions.  And  in 
our  efforts  to  ascertain  the  ])articular  opinions  of  a  writer,  we 
have  to  take  the  greatest  care  not  to  give  greater  precision 
and  definiteness  to  his  thoughts  than  he  himself  gave  to  them. 
We  are  to  be  on  our  guard  against  supposing  that  he  was 
aware  of  difficulties  which  only  the  long  course  of  time  disco- 
vered, or  of  shades  of  difference  which  only  the  most  searching 
thought  was  after  long  endeavour  able  to  distinguish.  Espe- 
cially in  starting  we  must  take  care  not  to  identify  broad 
general  statements  with  those  minute  theories  which  are 
called  their  developments.  We  shall  thus  be  fitted  in  some 
measure  for  one  of  the  great  tasks  of  the  age,  namely,  to 
distinguish  between  what  is  essential  and  what  is  non-essential 
in  Christianity. 

There  is  one  advantage  which  some  will  expect  from  a  study 
of  early  Christian  theology  in  regard  to  which  they  will  be 
disajipointed.  Many  theological  questions  agitate  men^s  minds 
in  these  days;  and  some  will  turn  to  investigations  like 
ours,  in  hopes  that  new  light  may  be  thrown  upon  them. 
This  is  a  mistake.  The  questions  which  agitate  one 
age  are  never  precisely  the  same  as  those  which  agitate 
•»  See  Sir  W.  Hamilton's  Lectures  on  Metaphysics,  vol.  ii.  p.  149. 


I.]  IXTNODUCTIOy.  7 

another ^  They  may  be  tundamentally  tlie  same;  hut  the 
circumstances  in  whicli  they  are  taken  up  are  so  widely 
difTerent,  that  they  require  dittereut  solutions.  Thus  the 
question  of  inspiration  as  it  presents  itself  to  us,  never  so 
presented  itself  to  any  previous  g^eneration.  In  former  times 
there  was  not  the  same  strictness  in  regard  to  historical  criti- 
cism; there  was  a  vast  amount  of  carelessness  in  regard  to 
textual  criticism ;  there  was  not  the  same  desire  for  uni- 
formity in  history  as  in  nature;  there  was  not  the  same 
chronological  accuracy;  and  many  other  such  circumstances, 
the  results  of  the  civilization  and  thought  of  this  and  past 
centuries,  unite  to  present  this  question  of  Inspiration  in  a 
light  different  from  that  in  which  it  appeared  to  the  early 
Christian  writers.  Therefore  their  decisions  are  nothing  to 
us,  because  they  did  not  feel  our  difficulties,  nor  had  they  our 
desire  for  precision. 

The  case  is  completely  altered  when  these  wi'iters  are 
adduced  as  witnesses  to  facts.  Here  we  have  to  deal  ^vith 
them  as  vouchers  for  the  statements  they  make.  And  hence 
the  vast  importance  of  a  critical  study  of  early  Christian 
literature  in  relation  to  a  knowledge  of  the  authorship  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  from  them  alone  that  we  get  any 
information  we  have  in  regard  to  some  of  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  books ;  and  in  them  alone  can  we  trace  the 
history  of  these  books,  and  find  external  testimony  to  their 
genuineness.  Before  this  work  can  be  done  satisfactorily,  we 
must  know  the  early  Christian  writers  well,  and  we  must 
ascertain  their  characters. 

We  may  also  expect  some  light  from  them  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  Testament.  Too  much  stress  is  not 
to  be  laid  on  this  point.  The  Christian  writers  were  not 
generally  men  of  profound  thought,  nor  were  even  men  of 
profound  thought  in  those  days  capable  of  exact  interpretation. 

c  Hegel  has  put  this  well  in  his  Pliilosophy  of  History  :  "  Jede  Zcit  liat 
80  eigenthiimliche  Umstiinde,  ist  ein  so  individueller  Zustand,  dass  in  ihm 
aus  ihm  selbst  entschieden  werden  muss,  und  allein  entschiedeu  werdcn 
kann."    (p.  9.) 


8  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

It  is  absnnl  therefore  to  speak  of  the  antkoriti/  of  the  early- 
Christian  writers  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament. 
Yet  still  as  these  men  lived  near  the  New  Testament  times, 
and  as  the  thouo-hts  of  one  generation  propagate  themselves 
through  the  next,  we  prepare  ourselves  for  an  accurate  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  Testament  by  careful  interpretation  of 
the  writers  that  followed  those  of  the  New  Testament,  and  by 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  their  modes  of  thought. 

Besides  the  interest  which  the  writings  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians possess  for  the  student  of  history  and  for  the  Christian, 
they  have  also  strong  claims  to  the  study  of  the  philosopher 
and  the  scholar. 

The  early  Christian  writers  frequently  discuss  the  philo- 
sophical opinions  of  previous  heathen  thinkers.  Their  works 
are  therefore  necessary  to  the  historian  of  Greek  philosophy. 
Thus  Eusebius  has  preserved  many  fragments  of  the  Stoics 
not  to  be  found  elsewhere.  Besides,  several  of  them  were 
philosophers  themselves.  When  they  were  such,  I  give  an 
exposition  of  their  peculiar  ideas  in  the  sections  which  treat 
of  their  character  and  merits.  Philosophy  occupies  ever  a 
more  and  more  prominent  place  in  Christian  writings  and 
thought,  as  we  advance  from  the  Apostolic  days;  and  the 
intermixture  of  philosophy  with  religion  in  those  times  has 
received  and  is  receiving  a  good  deal  of  attention  from 
scholars.  There  are  three  works  especially  devoted  to  the 
philosophy  of  the  Fathers  :  volume  fifth  of  Ritter^s  Geschichte 
der  Philosophie;  A.  Stockl's  Geschichte  der  Philosophic  in 
der  patristischen  Zeit,  a  Roman  Catholic  work ;  and  Die 
Philosophie  der  Kirchenvater,  von  Dr.  Johannes  Huber, 
Munchen  1859. 

A  knowledge  of  the  early  Christian  writers  is  also  of  great 
importance  to  the  scholar.  The  works  of  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  are  a  storehouse  of  fragments  of  the  Greek  comic 
writers.  They  contain  also  curious  information  with  re- 
gard to  the  mysteries,  as  do  those  of  some  others.  And 
indeed  both  in  regard  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  religions 
the  writings  of  the  early  Christians   are  invaluable.     They 


I.]  INTRODUCTION.  0 

were  enabled  from  their  position  to  see  many  thin^  which 
heathens  never  thought  of  observing. 

We  also  derive  from  them,  and  especially  from  Tertullian 
and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  much  information  in  regard  to 
heathen  manners  and  customs.  We  have  sometimes  im- 
portant literary  notices  in  them ;  and  in  one  of  them,  Tatian, 
considerable  light  is  thrown  on  the  history  of  ancient  art. 


CHAPTER    II. 

PRINCIPLES   OF    CRITICISM EXTERNAL   TESTIMONY. 

In  this  and  the  following  chapters  we  state  the  main  prin- 
ciples of  our  criticism.  We  ascertain  the  genuineness  of  a 
work,  either  by  historical  testimony  or  by  internal  evidence, 
or  by  both. 

In  regard  to  testimony,  we  set  out  with  the  principle,  that 
the  only  proper  historical  evidence  is  contemporary  testimony. 
Even  the  assertions  of  contemporaries  are  not  always  to  be 
trusted.  How  few,  for  instance,  of  those  alive  at  the  present 
day  could  be  called  competent  witnesses  in  regard  to  the 
birthday  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  or  of  the  Ettrick  Shep- 
herd. And  if  we  examine  the  facts  of  our  own  consciousness 
and  the  reports  of  daily  life,  we  shall  see  that  even  individuals 
themselves  are  not  always  to  be  relied  on  for  the  facts  of  their 
own  history.  Tlie  uncertainty  which  thus  attaches  to  even 
proper  historical  statements,  must  not  drive  us  into  complete 
unbelief.  We  receive  the  statements  of  contemporaries  as 
true,  unless  there  is  some  reason  to  look  upon  them  as  false. 
We  do  not  huld  these  statements  as  absolutely  certain,  but 
we  take  them  for  the  most  likely  we  can  get,  and  we  rely  on 
them  just  as  we  rely  every  day  on  assertions  that  are  not 
based  on  incontestable  evidence.  As  we  move  away  from  the 
particular  period  into  testimony  of  a  later  period,  we  are  not 
warranted  in  rejecting  it  entirely,  for  the  testimony  of  a  later 
period  may  be  and  generally  is  the  testimony  of  contempo- 
raries handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another.     But  we 


Chap.  11.]  I  NT  IW  DUCT  ION.  II 

must  be  more  cautious.  We  have  now  to  take  into  account  the 
exaggerations  and  distortions  which  result  from  the  passage  of 
a  thought  or  statement  through  various  minds.  We  must  re- 
member the  marvellous  proneness  of  human  beings  to  mistake 
one  thing  for  another,  especially  when  they  are  under  any  in- 
fluence which  may  blind  them  to  the  naked  truth.  These  and 
many  such  considerations  must  be  ever  present  to  the  mind  in 
the  estimate  of  evidence.  A  previous  examination  of  all  these 
considerations  *  would  be  useless.  The  discussion  of  particular 
cases  brings  them  out  into  clearer  light  than  any  formal  in- 
vestigation. Only  this  important  principle  is  to  be  continually 
kept  in  mind — that  all  past  evidence  is  to  be  measured  and 
estimated  by  our  experience  of  evidence  in  the  present  time. 
"  Historical  evidence/^  says  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis,  "  like 
judicial  evidence,  is  founded  on  the  testimony  of  credible  wit- 
nesses. Unless  these  witnesses  had  personal  and  immediate 
perception  of  the  facts  which  they  report,  unless  they  saw  and 
heard  what  they  undertake  to  relate  as  having  happened,  their 
evidence  is  not  entitled  to  credit.  As  all  original  witnesses 
must  be  contemporary  wath  the  events  which  they  attest,  it 
is  a  necessary  condition  for  the  credibility  of  a  witness  that 
he  be  a  contemporary;  though  a  contemporary  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  credible  witness.  Unless  therefore  an  historical  account 
can  be  traced  by  probable  proof  to  the  testimony  of  contem- 
poraries, the  first  condition  of  historical  credibility  fails ''.^^ 
The  forgetfidness  of  this  principle  has  retarded  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  exact  truth,  in  regard  to  many  points  of  early 
Christian  literature,  to  a  degree  that  is  scarcely  conceivable. 
A  factitious  reverence  for  some  of  the  Christian  writers  has 
brought  along  with  it  a  too  great  facility  of  belief.  And  there 
is  added  to  this  the  circumstance  that  our  information  is  often 
so  scanty  that  there  is  a  strong  temptation  to  supply  what  is 

a  Variou.s  writers  have  devised  and  arranged  canon.s,  in  order  to  determine 
the  genuineness  or  spuriousness  of  books.  For  a  list,  see  Walchii  Bibliotheca 
Patrlstica,  p.  258. 

b  Inquiry  into  the  Credibility  of  the  Early  Roman  History,  vol.  i.  p.  16. 
See  the  whole  section,  and  the  notes  to  it. 


12  IXTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap. 

defective  by  the  help  of  statements  that  have  not  the  shadow 
of  historical  evidence  in  their  favour.  The  various  attempts 
at  a  history  of  early  Christian  literature,  which  we  shall 
notice  subsecjuently,  all  .'^ig-nally  fail  in  carrying  out  this  first 
and  essential  jjrinciple  of  historical  evidence. 

Before  we  can  deal  satisfactorily  with  evidence  in  a  parti- 
cular case,  we  must  know  the  chai-acter  of  the  witnesses. 
I  deem  it  therefore  appropriate  to  tak(?  a  short  survey  of  the 
authorities  on  whom  we  have  to  rely  in  the  history  of 
Christian  literature,  and  my  method  of  treating  them. 

At  the  outset  it  may  be  remarked  of  all  our  witnesses,  that 
it  is  utterly  absurd  to  expect  from  men  of  the  first  five 
centuries  of  the  Chnstian  era  anything'  like  an  adherence  to 
the  principles  of  modern  historical  criticism.  In  individual 
cases,  where  controversy  and  its  frequent  concomitant  per- 
secution raged  keenly  and  men^s  minds  were  shai-pened,  we 
may  sometimes  meet  with  an  approach  to  it :  but  where  there 
is  nothing  to  rouse  the  critical  faculty,  we  may  generally 
expect  an  amount  of  credulity  and  arbitrariness  which  sur- 
passes the  capacities  of  most  moderns.  This  statement  applies 
not  only  to  Christian  wn-iters,  but  to  the  veiy  best  thinkers 
of  ancient  times^,  to  the  very  best  critics  of  Alexandria,  and, 
not  least,  to  the  great  Aristarchus  in  his  own  department ••. 
It  applies  with  especial  force  however  to  the  era  in  which 
Christian  literature  arose,  and  we  meet  with  the  same  easiness 
of  belief  and  arbitrariness  of  procedure  in  Plutarch,  Diogenes 
Laertius,  and  Lucian,  as  in  Hegesippus  and  Eusebius. 

The  want  of  a  critical  facvdty  exhibits  itself  in  not  clearly 
estimating  the  value  of  external  testimony  <?.  There  is  a  certain 
contentedness  in  all  ancient  writers  which  allows  them  to  put 

<^  See  Zeller's  estimate  of  Aristotle  in  his  Platonische  Studien,  p.  131, 
quoted  by  Schwegler  in  the  introductory  chapter  of  his  Nachapostolisches 
Zeitalter,  vol.  i.  p.  45,  where  he  exhibits  fully  the  uncritical  character  of  all 
the  ancients. 

<*  For  the  Latin  historians,  see  Merivale's  History  of  the  Romans  under  the 
Empire,  vol.  vii.  p.  307. 

e  See  Wolf's  Prolegomena  ad  Homerum,  c.  xlvi.  '  Is  critico  judicio  raaxime 
pollere  putabatur  qui  optimum  poetam  proprio  ingenio  emendare  p0ter.1t.' 


II.]  IXTRODUCTIOX.  13 

faith  in  the  most  improbable  assertions ;  and  sometimes  their 
power  of  belief  is  coextensive  with  their  power  of  fancy,  so 
that  a  guess  with  them  easily  crystallises  into  a  fact.  This 
state  of  mind,  where  facts  and  fancies  meet  with  the  same 
ready  welcome,  occurs  most  frequently  in  the  case  of  those 
men  who  were  much  conversant  with  speculation.  Thus  we 
find  in  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  in  Orig-en,  an  exceeding- 
readiness  to  identify  mth  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  any  Christian  individuals  of  the  same  name  who 
had  existed  before  their  own  time. 

The  examination  of  the  genuineness  of  early  Christian  lite- 
rature is  a  matter  of  great  difficulty,  because  there  is  little  of 
contemporary  testimony.  No  ■  one  set  about  composing  a 
history  of  the  Church  and  its  affairs  until  Eusebius.  We 
have  accordingly  only  scattered  notices  which  have  to  be 
pieced  together.  The  great  danger  in  such  a  case  is,  that  the 
modern  critic  give  reins  to  his  imagination,  and  out  of  the 
few  scattered  facts  or  likelihoods  patch  together,  by  the  help 
of  fancy,  a  complete  whole.  Hence  the  history  of  Christian 
literature  has  been  overloaded  with  innumerable  conjectures. 
It  has  been  my  object  to  avoid  as  much  as  possible  conjecture 
itself,  and  the  record  of  conjectures.  The  statements  of  con- 
temporaries and  those  later  writers  who  may  be  supposed  to 
have  had  access  to  good  sources,  are  set  down  and  examined. 
And  no  attempt  is  made  beyond  this  to  settle  points  that  it 
is  utterly  impossible  to  settle  without  evidence.  This  remark 
applies  especially  to  dates,  few  of  which  can  be  fixed  with  any- 
thing like  certainty  in  the  first  or  second  centui'ies. 

I  have  proceeded  in  a  peculiar  way  with  the  writers  sub- 
sequent to  the  first  three  centuries.  My  first,  my  best,  and 
almost  my  only  authority  is  Eusebius.  Eusebius  wrote  his 
history  just  at  the  point  of  time  when  there  was  still  some 
sympathy  for  the  true  spirit  of  the  early  writers,  but  when 
that  sympathy  was  soon  to  be  utterly  absorbed  in  sympathies 
for  thoughts  of  a  very-  different  kind.  He  was  devotedly 
attached  to  the  study  of  the  early  writers;  he  had  ample 
opportunities ;  and  he  was  capable  of  using  them  well.     The 


I  J  INTRODUCTIOy.  [Chap. 

immense  value  of  his  book  arises  from  the  eireumstance  that 
he  was  careful  in  recording  his  i)roofs  and  in  quoting-  from 
the  writers  of  whom  he  was  {^^iving-  an  account.  Like  all  the 
rest  of  his  own  age,  he  was  utterly  uncritical  in  his  estimate 
of  evidence,  and  where  he  as  it  were  translates  the  language 
of  others  into  his  own,  not  giving  their  words  but  his  own 
idea  of  their  meaning,  he  is  almost  invariably  wrong.  Every 
statement  therefore  which  he  makes  himself,  is  to  be  received 
with  caution.  But  there  can  be  no  question  about  the  trust- 
worthiness of  his  quotations.  Some  indeed  have  accused  him 
of  a  wish  to  conceal  the  truth ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
charge  is  utterly  unfounded,  and  is  based  on  a  total  miscon- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  one  or  two  passages  in  his  writings. 
It  need  scarcely  be  observed  that,  like  all  of  his  own  age,  he 
does  not  realize  the  various  stages  of  thought  and  practice 
through  which  the  Church  passed.  He  generally  gives  the  old 
thoughts  and  the  old  practices  the  clothing  and  names  which 
they  had  in  his  own  day. 

Eusebius  did  his  work  well ;  and  his  history  became  henee- 
Ibrth  the  standard  book  on  the  subject.  All  subsequent  writers 
have  sim})ly  repeated  his  statements,  sometimes  indeed  mis- 
representing them.  Eusebius  therefore  stands  as  my  first  and 
almost  only  authority.  When  statements  additional  to  those 
of  Eusebius  are  found  in  subsequent  writers,  I  have  looked  on 
them  with  suspicion.  No  doubt  many  things  did  escape  the 
notice  of  Eusebius.  We  have  one  remarkable  instance  in  his 
omission  of  all  mention  of  Athenagoras.  We  know  also  that 
he  was  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  Latin  Christian 
writers.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  his  omis- 
sions in  regard  to  the  early  Greek  Christian  writers  can  be 
made  up  for  by  the  unattested  statements  of  subsequent 
historians.  The  assertion  of  Maximus  in  his  Preface  to  the 
works  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite^,  that  he  had  seen  many 
books  not  known  to  Eusebius,  is  worthless  in  itself.  For  the 
works  he  was  recommending  were  forgeries,  and  all  the  books 
which   he  had  in  view  may  have  been  spurious.     We  know 

f  Tom.  i.  p.  xxxvi.  t<i.  Corderii. 


II.]  lyrKODUCTION.  1 T) 

that  to  have  been  the  case  in  at  least  one  instance,  for  he 
finds  fault  with  Eusebius  because  he  omits  mention  of  all  the 
works  of  Clemens  Romanus,  except  his  two  letters.  I  agree 
entirely  with  the  principle  laid  down  by  EvansS  in  speaking 
of  Eusebius  :  "  Later  authors  supply  useful  subsidiary  infor- 
mation, but  no  fact  should  be  insisted  upon,  nor  any  weighty 
inference  drawn,  where  they  are  the  sole  avithority.^'' 

The  only  work  that  was  professedly  composed  on  the  same 
subject  as  the  history  of  Eusebius  was  Jerome's  book  "  De 
lllustribus  A^iris."  As  far  as  he  has  Eusebius  for  his  guide, 
Jerome  simply  translates  him,  now  and  then  misconstruing 
his  sentences^,  occasionally  contracting,  and  sometimes  adding 
a  few  sentences  of  fresh  matter. 

Any  additions  he  makes  are  invariably  to  be  looked  on  with 
suspicion,  as  we  shall  see.  Jerome  has  often  been  called  the 
greatest  critic  of  the  fathers,  but  certainly  his  critical  powers 
never  come  out  in  his  historical  treatises.  He  intended  at  one 
time  to  write  a  history  of  the  Church ;  and  one  should  have 
inferred  from  this  that  he  had  examined  the  subject;  but 
there  is  nowhere  in  his  writings  proof  of  his  being  acquainted 
with  writers  unknown  to  Eusebius,  or  of  his  having  made 
more  minute  investigations.  And  in  the  few  historical  trea- 
tises which  he  has  left,  especially  in  his  Life  of  Hilarion,  we 
have  convincing  proof  that  he  could  be  deluded  by  the  most 
absurd  stories,  that  in  fact  he  had  no  idea  of  examining 
critically  circumstances  which  took  place  even  in  his  own  time 
and  his  own  neighbourhood.  Besides  all  this,  we  know  from 
his  violent  harangues  against  Helvidius,  Jovinian,  and  Vigi- 
lantius,  that,  if  his  anger  were  roused,  truth  and  decency  were 
cast  to  the  winds.  We  have  also  to  take  into  account  the 
rapidity  of  his  production.  He  wrote  at  an  inordinate  rate, 
not  having  time  to  consider  his  thoughts  or  statements,  and 
not  caring  to  marshal  his  authorities'.    To  such  inconvenience 

B  Biography  of  the  Early  Church,  series  i.  p.  1 1 . 

h  See  inst.ances  of  Jerome's  mistakes  in  Greek  in  I'tarson,  Vind.  Ign.  part 
li.  c.  X. 

'  See  Daill^,  De  Yero  Usu  PHtruin.  p.  236. 


ir,  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

did  his  rashness  sometimes  put  him,  that  lie  had  to  retract 
statements  wliioh  he  made  in  reg'ard  to  incidents  in  his  own 
lifek. 

Several  after  Jerome  took  up  the  subject  of  the  illus- 
trious writers  of  the  Churchy  but  their  productions  do  not 
deserve  attention.  Most  of  them  indeed  do  not  discuss 
the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  the  few  that  do 
are  hasty  uncritical  short  sketches  based  on  Jerome'. 

Tlie  writers  that  refer  incidentally  to  the  history  of  the 
Church  are  comparatively  few.  The  men  of  the  fourth  and 
later  centuries  did  not  busy  themselves  much  with  the 
thou<>;hts  of  the  earliest  among  their  predecessors.  The  most 
noteworthy  are  the  ecclesiastical  historians  and  the  historians 
of  heresies. 

The  historians  that  relate  the  history  of  the  Chiu"ch  in  the 
first  three  centuries — Rufinus,  Cassiodorus,  and  Nicephorus — 
simply  translate  or  compile  from  Eusebius,  often,  like  Jerome, 
misunderstanding,  and  as  often  wilfully  changing*.  The  only 
historian  that  can  be  said  to  seem  to  occupy  an  independent 
position  is  Sulpicius  Severus,  and  his  work  is  altogether  the 
merest  abstract.  The  praises  and  credit  which  have  been 
yielded  to  this  writer  are  for  the  most  part  undeserved. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  he  gave  a  moderate 
degree  of  attention  to  the  ante-Nicene  writers ;    and  there  is 

•<  For  some  of  Jerome's  wilful  mistakes  and  exaggerations,  see  Maitland'a 
Churcli  in  the  Catacombs,  p.  229,  note  ;  Isaac  Taylor's  Ancient  Christianity, 
vol.  i.  p.  343  :  Dailli^,  De  Vero  Usu  Patrum,  p.  153  ;  and  especially  Dr.  Gilly's 
Vigilantius  and  his  Times,  ji.  93.  Notwithstanding  the  plainest  proofs  of 
Jerome's  want  of  critical  power,  Roman  Catholic  writers  have  placed  him  even 
above  Eusebiiis  as  an  authority.     See  Mohler's  Patrologie,  p.  21. 

'  The  works  of  these  writers  are  collected  by  Fabricius  in  his  Bibliotheca 
Ecclesiastica,  in  qua  continentur  De  Scriptoribus  Ecclesiasticis  S.  Hieronymus, 
Gennadius  Massiliensis,  Isidorus  Hispalensis,  lldefonsus  Toletanus,  Honorius 
Augustodunensis,  Sigebertus  Gemblacensi.s,  Henricus  Gandavensis,  Anonynnis 
Mellicensis,  Petrus  Casinensis,  Jo.  Trithemii  Abbatis  Spanheniensis  Liber  de 
S.  E.  Aub.  Miraei  Auctarium  de  S.  E.  curante  Jo.  Alberto  Fabricio  S.  S. 
Theolog.  D.  Hamburgi,  17 18,  fol.  Fabricius  occasionall)"  adds  copious  notes, 
especially  to  tlie  work  of  Jerome. 


II.]  INTRODUCTION.  17 

the  most  convincing-  proof  in  his  Life  of  St.  Martin  tliat  he 
was  totally  unfit  to  investigate  evidence"'. 

The  historians  of  the  Heresies  are  equally  xmcritical. 
Epiphanius  seems  to  have  been  a  man  whose  ideas  of  geo- 
graphy, history,  and  chronology  were  confused  to  an  extraor- 
dinary degree.  The  one  quotation  which  Daille  has  made  in 
proof  of  his  ignorance  of  geography  is  suflficient  to  show  how 
much  we  may  rely  on  his  statements.  We  extract  it  here. 
"  The  Pheison/'  he  says,  "  is  called  Ganges  among  the  Indians 
and  Ethiopians.  The  Greeks  call  it  Indus.  For  it  encircles 
the  whole  of  Evilat,  both  little  and  great,  even  the  parts  of 
the  Elymeans,  and  passes  through  Great  Ethiopia,  turns  to 
the  south,  and  within  Gades  flows  into  the  Great  Ocean"." 
Of  his  historical  confusions  we  shall  have  many  instances ;  and 
nothing  more  need  be  said  here,  than  simply  that  the  prefer- 
ence which  some  critics  have  shown  for  Epiphanius"^,  Theo- 
doret,  and  the  later  writers,  is  totally  unwarranted.  Most  of 
these  writers  were  monks  who  lived  away  from  the  world  of 
realities,  who  could  scarcely  distinguish  between  facts  and  their 
own  fancies,  and  who  were  probably  very  indifi'erent  whether 
Hadrian  lived  ten  or  a  hundred  years  before  Marcus  Anto- 
ninus. The  causes  why  their  statements  have  been  preferred 
are  mainly  two.  They  have  sometimes  made  assertions  in 
harmony  with  the  conjectures  of  the  critics,  and  they  have 
been  looked  on  as  sainted  men  whose  eveiy  opinion  and  affir- 
mation must  have  been  true,  or,  at  the  very  least,  close  to  the 
truth. 

All  that  has  been  said  of  the  uncritical  character  of  such 


™  Neither  Sulpicius  Severus  nor  Cassiodorus  deserves  the  name  of  historian. 
Bemay8  in  his  monograph  Ueber  die  Chronik  des  Sulpicius  Severus  (Berlin 
1861),  shows  that  the  Historia  Sacra  of  Severus  was  regarded  as  a  Chronicle 
by  writers  who  lived  not  long  after  his  time.  Cassiodoi-us  calls  his  book  a 
Chronicon,  and  he  is  more  entitled  to  be  noticed  in  a  history  of  early  Christian 
Literature  for  two  or  tliree  chapters  in  his  De  Institutione  Divinarum  Scrip- 
turarum  than  for  the  few  allusions  to  Christian  authors  in  his  Chronicon. 

"  Anchor,  p.  60,  D,  c.  58,  Dindorf. 

"  Dodwell,  for  instance,  has  fallen  into  a  series  of  wild  conjectures  from 
ti-usting  to  Epiphanius.     See  Dissertat.  in  Irenwum,  iii.  19. 

C 


18  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

eminent  writers  as  Epiphanius  and  Theodoret  applies  with 
»'(jual  force  to  the  accounts  of  heresies  given  hy  such  men  as 
Pliilastrius  or  in  the  anonymous  or  pseudepig-raphous  libelli 
eoHected  hy  OehlerP. 

As  we  advance  in  time,  our  authorities  become  fewer.  They 
consist  of  tlie  chroniclers,  and  of  several  writers  who  mention 
the  hooks  that  come  in  their  way.  The  chroniclers  form  a  nume- 
rous class.  They  are  all  more  or  less  dependent  on  Eusebius. 
Eusebius  published  a  work  called  WavTohaTri]  laTopia,  consisting" 
of  a  chronographia  and  a  Kaviav  xpoviKos-  His  researches  were 
based  on  the  labours  of  Julius  Africanus.  Tlie  second  part,  or 
Canon  Chronicus,  was  translated  into  Latin  by  Jerome ;  but 
Jerome  took  great  liberties  with  his  author's  text,  as  he  himself 
informs  us  in  the  preface,  suppressing  some  parts  and  fdling 
out  others.  In  Jerome's  translation  alone  the  work  came  down 
to  us ;  and  it  is  only  within  recent  times  that  an  Armenian 
translation  has  been  discovered'i.  Eusebius  wrote  this  work 
before  he  wrote  his  ecclesiastical  history.  His  Ecclesiastical 
History  necessarily  treated  the  matters  with  which  we  are 
concerned  more  fully  than  his  Canon  Chronieus.  So  that  we 
should  have  derived  little  assistance  from  the  work  if  it  had 
come  down  to  us  complete  and  in  Greek.  If  the  Armenian 
version  contains  the  whole,  Eusebius  must  have  treated  ecclesi- 
astical matters  very  concisely  indeed,  and  certainly  not  with 
the  same  care  which  he  afterwards  bestowed  on  that  part  of 
his  subject.  In  Jerome's  translation  many  additional  dates 
are  inserted,  and  the  subject  is  treated  more  amply ;  but  the 
same  faults  that  are  evident  in  his  work  De  Illustribus  Viris 

P  Corporis  Haereseologici  Tomus  Primus  continens  Scriptores  Haereseolo- 
gico3  Minores  Latinos.  Edidit  Franciscus  Oehler.  Berolini  i8;6-6r.  The 
second  portion  contains  the  Panarion  of  Epiphanius. 

'1  Eusebii  Pamphili  Cwsariensis  Episcopi  Chronicon  Bipartitum :  nunc  primum 
ex  Armeniaco  te\tu  in  Latinum  conversum  annotationibus  auctuiri.  Graecis 
fraginentis  exomatum.  Opera  P.  Jo.  Baptistae  Aucher  Ancyrani.  Monachi 
Anneni  et  Doctoris  Mechitaristae.  Venetiis  1818,  4to.  It  was  published  also 
by  Mai  and  Zolirab  the  same  year  at  Milan.  Mai  has  published  an  abstract  of 
the  Greek  which  he  had  discovered,  in  his  Scriptonnn  Vetenini  Nova  Collectio 
(Roma?  1 825),  V(il.  viii   pars  i. 


II.]  IXTRODUCTION.  ID 

are  manifest  here  also.  From  some  cause  or  other  there  is 
considerable  discrepancy  between  the  numbers  as  given  in  the 
Armenian  version  and  in  the  translation  of  Jerome.  This 
circumstance  is  probably  owing  to  the  ease  with  which  one 
number  is  mistaken  for  another,  especially  by  careless  tran- 
scribers. The  principal  chronicles  which  treated  of  the  same 
periods  as  that  of  Eusebius,  were  the  Chronicon  Paschale,  and 
the  Chronicles  of  Georg-ius  Sjmcellus,  Georgius  Cedrenus, 
and  Joannes  Malalas.  So  convinced  was  Sealiger  that  these 
writers  had  recourse  to  Eusebius,  that  in  his  restoration  of  the 
Eusebian  text  he  thought  he  was  jiistified  in  extracting  indis- 
criminately from  these  writers  and  setting  the  extracts  do\\Tii 
to  the  account  of  Eusebius'".  It  is  generally  allowed  now  that 
Sealiger  went  too  far ;  and  that  at  least  some  of  these  writers 
frequently  consulted  the  sources*.  Yet  they  will  be  found, 
when  we  come  to  examine  the  information  they  give  addi- 
tional to  that  of  Eusebius,  to  have  been  led  astray  or  rash  in 
their  interpretation,  rather  than  resting  their  statements  on 
new  authorities.  In  fact  they  were  a  careless  set  of  writers, 
content  with  making  books  of  considerable  size,  without 
the  slightest  thoug-ht  as  to  what  the  quality  of  the  books 
might  be.  Some  of  them,  like  Malalas,  committed  the  most 
ridiculous  blunders,  such  as  calling  Sallust  and  Cicero  the 
wisest  poets  of  the  Romans,  and  making  Claudius  Csesar  the 
founder   of  the    city  of  Britain,   not   far  from  the   Ocean*. 

■■  Thesaurus  Teinporum  Eusebii  Pamphili :  Clironicorum  Canonum  omiiimodiB 
historiae  libri  duo,  interprete  Hieronyrao  :  item  autores  omnes  derelicta  ab 
Eusebio  et  Hieronymo  continuantes,  ejusdem  Eusebii  utriusque  partis  Chroiii- 
corum  Canonum  reliquiae  Graecae,  quae  colligi  potuerunt.  Opera  ac  studio 
Josephi  Justi  Scaligeri,  editio  altera.     Amstelodami  1658,  fol. 

*  See  for  instance  in  defence  of  Georgius  Syncellus  the  Praefatio  of  Goarus 
in  p.  61,  vol.  ii.  of  the  edition  of  Syncellus  and  Nicephorus  by  Wilhelm 
Dindorf :  Bonn  1829.  These  volumes  form  part  of  the  Corpus  Scriptorum 
Historiae  Byzantinae,  got  up  by  Niebuhr.  The  Chronicon  Paschale  appeared 
in  the  series  Bonn  1832,  and  the  Chronicle  of  Malalas,  Bonn  1831  ;  both 
edited  by  Louis  Dindorf.     Cedrenus  appeared  in  1838-39,  edited  by  Bekker. 

*  See  Hodius,  Prolegomena,  sect,  xxxvi.  p.  Ixv.  in  Dindorf's  edition.  And 
on  the  name  and  character  of  Malalas,  see  De  Quincey's  article  on  Bentley,  in 
his  Works,  vol.  vi.  "Studies  on  Secret  Records." 

C  2 


20  IN  TROD  UCTIOK.  [Chap.  TI. 

Btsides,  these  chroniclers  deal  very  superficially  with  the  his- 
tory of  our  period,  passing  over  it  in  a  cursory  manner,  and 
often  j^iving  us  merely  untrustworthy  lists  of  bishops.  They 
are  most  valuable  when  they  supply  us  with  extracts  from  the 
early  Christian  writers;  but  even  then  we  have  to  take  care 
that  the  elironieler  has  not  been  betrayed  into  acceptin<j  as 
g'enuine  what  a  little  critical  power  would  have  clearly  shown 
him  to  be  si)unous. 

Of  the  other  works  which  throw  some  light  on  early 
Christian  literature,  the  most  valuable  is  the  Library'  of 
Photius".  The  notices  it  contains  of  books  which  he  read 
may  be  relied  on.  Not  so  much  can  be  said  of  the  opinions 
he  may  express  in  the  course  of  his  narrative.  But  still,  in 
regard  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  early  writers,  he 
was  in  a  position  to  speak  more  fairly  than  the  writers  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  They  wrote  at  a  time  when 
many  of  the  most  important  doctrines  were  being  discussed. 
They  were  not  without  a  wish  that  the  early  writers  should 
be  on  their  side,  though  sometimes  they  cared  little  about 
them.  Photius  was  entirely  free  from  this  desire.  His 
dogmas  were  to  his  own  mind  infallibly  certain  ;  and  by 
them  he  judged  other  writings  without  respect  of  persons. 

A  few  scattered  allusions  to  early  Christian  writers,  and 
quotations  from  their  books,  occur  in  other  less  known 
works,  such  as  the  'O^r/yo's  of  Anastasius  Siuaita,  in  the 
Parallels  of  John  of  Damascus,  and  in  the  works  of  Anasta- 
sius Bibliothccarius.  Many  of  the  Martj-ria  have  been  pre- 
served by  Simeon  Metaphrastes.  All  these  are  credulous  and 
careless. 

"  Photii  Bibliotheca  :  ex  recensione  Iminanuelis  Bekkeri.  Berolini  1S24,  4to. 


CHAPTER    III 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


It  will  be  seen  from  the  short  notice  of  the  authorities  g-iven 
in  the  last  chapter,  that  the  external  testimony  may  sometimes 
fail  us  entirely,  and  sometimes  be  next  to  worthless.  Our 
only  resource  then  is  in  the  internal  evidence.  Sometimes 
internal  evidence  may  be  of  the  most  satisfactory  nature,  but 
generally  it  gives  us  very  little.  It  is  often  valuable  in 
establishing  a  negative  conclusion.  It  seldom  helps  us  to 
definitely  positive  knowledge.  Its  negative  conclusions  are 
often  however  of  the  most  important  nature ;  and  as  this  is 
especially  the  case  with  our  subject,  we  must  say  a  few  words 
on  the  circumstances  which  compel  us  to  have  such  frequent 
recourse  to  internal  evidence. 

The  productions  claiming  to  belong  to  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, for  which  there  is  no  satisfactory  external  testimony, 
are  very  numerous.  They  may  be  divided  into  two  large 
classes.  Tlie  one  class  includes  those  works  which  were  un- 
doubtedly written  within  the  first  three  centuries  or  shortly 
after.  The  origin  of  these  books  is  a  matter  for  investigation 
in  each  particular  case.  But  in  general  it  may  be  remarked 
that  many  productions  appeared  anonymously  and  often  in 
fictitious  form,  and  that  later  writers  attributed  them  to  men 
who  had  been  eminent  in  the  Church.  A  large  number  of 
these  works  owe  their  present  state  to  circumstances  of  a 
different  nature.  The  process  of  their  formation  seems  to 
have  been  the  following.  There  was  at  first  some  small 
writing  which  became  the  nucleus  of  interpolations,  additions, 


■22  INTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap. 

and  emendations.  Each  transcriber,  as  lie  copied,  inserted 
the  notes  of  previous  readers  into  the  text,  and  otten  from 
his  heated  imag-ination  added  something  himself.  This  is 
ackiiowled<?ed  ou  all  hands  to  he  the  case  in  many  of  the 
Martyria,  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  and  in  the  Litur- 
gies. This  circumstance  makes  it  a  duty  to  proceed  with  the 
utmost  caution  and  circumspection  in  the  treatment  of  the 
early  writers.  We  may  possibly  have  before  us  works  of  the 
earl}'  writers,  but  works  which  at  the  same  time  have  received 
additions  from  later  hands. 

The  second  class  of  writing's  consists  of  those  which  them- 
selves claim  to  be  the  productions  of  men  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  but  which  there  is  strong  reason  to  suspect  were 
deliberate  forgeries.  The  wa'iters  of  the  first  three  centuries 
while  they  lived  gained  for  their  opinions  no  more  authority 
than  the  soundness  of  the  truth,  the  clearness  of  the  style, 
and  their  personal  character  naturally  commanded.  But  at  a 
subsequent  period  an  eager  desire  was  felt  to  obtain  for  some 
practices  and  dogmas  the  stamp  of  a  long  antiquity.  And 
hence  arose  a  considerable  number  of  forgeries  which  pre- 
tended to  be  the  works  of  the  early  writers.  Many  of  these 
forgeries  ai'e  so  gross  that  almost  all  parties  have  now  agreed 
to  treat  them  as  spurious.  Such,  for  instance,  are  the  letters 
of  the  so-called  early  Popes.  In  some  cases,  however, 
considerable  difficulty  is  experienced,  and  the  difficulty  is 
increased  by  the  circumstance  that  we  know  for  certain  that 
even  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  the  letters  of  bishops 
and  others  were  excised  and  interpolated  in  their  lifetime. 
Dionysius  mentions  that  his  epistles  were  mutilated »,  and 
Cyprian  tells  how  he  sent  back  a  letter  to  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  in  Rome,  to  see  if  it  were  genuine  and  had  not  been 
tampered  with  ^. 

Some  are  of  opinion  that  many  early  Christian  vrriters 
forged  writings  in  the  name  of  the  great  men  of  iormer  days 
^^'ith  no  bad  intention.     ]Men  in  those  days,  they  say,  thought 

"  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  23.     See  Heiniclien's  Fir^t  Excursus,  vul.  iii.  j..  354. 
'•  Cypriani  Opern.  GoWh.irn,  E]'ist.  IX.  c.  ii. 


III.]  INTRODUCTION.  23 

more  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  subject-matter  than  of  the 
authority  of  the  writer,  and  hence  they  did  not  hesitate  to 
issue  works  in  the  name  of  another  man,  simply  because  they 
were  in  the  style  or  mode  of  thought  peculiar  to  that  man  ^ 
This  liberal  theory,  however,  has  not  the  slightest  historical 
foundation  to  rest  on.  None  of  the  ancient  writers  seem  to  have 
been  aware  of  this  peculiar  method  of  expressing  tendencies. 
And  perhaps  it  would  not  have  been  so  readily  proposed  in 
modern  times,  had  not  the  number  of  writings  which  the 
school  who  hold  the  theory  suppose  to  be  forged  been  enormous. 
If  almost  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  are  forgeries, 
and  if  nearly  all  the  productions  of  the  second  century  are 
also  of  doubtful  character,  some  mode  of  palliating  at  least,  if 
not  entirely  defending,  the  procedure  of  the  authors  of  these 
works  is  absolutely  necessary. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  an  opinion  is  prevalent  that  the 
writings  of  the  early  Christians  were  peculiarly  open  to  inter- 
polations and  corruptions  from  transcribers,  translators,  and 
editors. 

This  opinion  is  not  without  reason.  When  we  come  to  treat 
of  Origen,  we  shall  see  on  what  arbitraiy  principles  Rufinus 
and  even  Jerome  translated  from  Greek  into  Latin,  correcting 
the  doctrine  as  well  as  omitting  when  it  was  deemed  inexpe- 
dient to  insert  the  sentence.  Perhaps,  however,  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  early  writings  have  been  unduly  magnified,  and 
the  Roman  Catholic  editors  especially  have  often  been  blamed 
for  interfering  with  the  text,  where  little  or  no  blame  was 
deserved"^.      The    eai-ly    editors    unquestionably    introduced 


^  See  Schwegler,  Nachapostolisches  Zeitalter,  p.  80. 

^  There  is  a  work  on  the  subject  in  English  :  "  A  Treatise  of  the  Corruptions 
of  Scripture,  Councils,  and  Fathers,  by  the  Prelates,  Pastors,  and  Pillars  of  the 
Church  of  Home,  for  the  maintenance  of  Popery.  By  Thomas  James,  Chief 
Keeper  of  the  Public  Librarj-  in  the  University  of  Oxford.  Revised  and  cor- 
rected from  the  editions  of  1612  and  1688  by  the  Rev.  Edmund  Cox,  M.A., 
London  1843."  James  was  evidently  crazy  on  the  subject  of  the  "foul  corrup- 
tions;" so  much  so,  that  he  would  at  last  trust  manuscripts  only.  He  did  good 
service  however  ;  and  his  book  is  a  curiosity  worth  looking  into.  For  other 
works  of  a  similar  nature,  see  Walch,  Bibl.  Patr.  p.  .307. 


24  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

several  expressions  of  a  papistic  nature  into  Cyprian^s  works. 
But  many  of  the  so-called  interpolations  were  made  only  in 
the  indexes.  And  the  omissions  of  which  they  were  guilty 
were  dictated  by  that  hierarchical  principle  which  forljids  a  full 
exhibition  of  everything"  to  popular  gaze — a  principle  which 
may  have  been  adopted  and  carried  out  with  the  strictest 
regard  to  truth  and  honesty.  The  fact  that  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics have  not  tampered  Avith  the  early  writers  is  best  proved 
by  the  circumstance  that  these  writers  often  bear  testimony 
against  the  practices  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  that 
the  theory  of  development  has  been  devised  to  account  for  the 
silence  of  early  Christian  authors  in  regard  to  many  dogmas 
afterwards  deemed  important  e. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  approach  to  the  criticism  of  early 
Christian  literature  must  be  made  with  suspicion  and  caution. 
But  we  are  not  to  be  driven  by  such  considerations  into  abso- 
lute despair.  On  the  contrary,  we  shall  find  that  most  cases 
admit  at  least  of  some  kind  of  solution.  The  mode  of  dealing 
with  the  internal  evidence  will  of  course  vary  in  each  particu- 
lar case. 

But  the  main  principle  of  all  such  investigations  deserves 
deliberate  enunciation  here — that  a  book  to  which  external 
testimony  bears  no  satisfactory  evidence  cannot  be  regarded 
as  genuine  if  its  doctrines  or  its  statements  differ  materially 
from  the  doctrines  or  statements  of  the  period.  It  is  ac- 
knowledged that  such  a  standai'd  is  fallible.  But  the  mode  of 
procedure  is  the  only  right  one.  The  book  is  set  aside  for  the 
time  as  of  uncertain  date.  All  the  works  which  are  known  to 
belong  to  the  period  to  which  this  one  claims  or  is  said  to 
belong  are  examined  carefully,  and  if  modes  of  expression, 
evolutions  of  opinion,  indications  of  controversies,  and  such 
like  occur  in  it  which  do  not  occur  in  them,  we  may  set 
down  the  book  as  being  of  a  later  date. 

In  the  application  of  this  test  we  deem  it  of  essential 
importance  ever  to  keep  before  our  minds  the  effect  of  time 

''  See  Daille,  Pe  Usu  Patniin  :  .iml  espeiiallj-  Blunt,  On  the  Use  of  the 
Fnthers. 


III.]  IXTRODUCTIOX.  25 

in  modifyini!:  opinion  and  testimony.  This  has  g-enerally 
been  overlooked.  The  Fathers  liave  been  massed  together  as 
a  whole,  and  the  opinion  of  one  has  been  appealed  to  as  if 
that  were  sufficient  to  prove  that  such  must  have  been  the 
opinion  of  another,  if  lie  be  but  a  Father.  Now  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  writings  of  the  so-called  Fathers  extend 
over  a  period  of  four  or  five  hundred  years  at  least ;  that  this 
period  was  a  period  of  much  excitement,  of  rapid  movement, 
of  great  and  most  momentous  change.  Christianity  at  its 
commencement  is  working  invisibly,  hardly  noticed  by  the 
most  keen  observer  outside.  Before  its  close,  it  has  become 
the  acknowledged  religion  of  the  government,  and  it  finally 
supplants  heathenism.  It  is  not  possible  that  such  changes 
should  take  place  in  the  outward  circumstances  of  Christians 
without  many  inward  changes,  many  transformations  and 
mutations  in  the  modes  of  thought  and  feeling,  among  those 
who  called  themselves  by  the  name  of  Christ. 

We  go  farther  than  this,  and  maintain  that  not  only  every 
century  but  every  age  brought  its  changes.  We  perceive 
this  in  our  own  age,  and  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  so  in 
past  ages.  The  remark  applies  peculiarly  to  periods  which 
form  the  commencement  of  eras.  The  new  idea  which  is 
launched  is  confined  at  first  to  a  small  circle,  gradually  widens 
and  widens  its  sphere,  comes  into  contact  with  more  obstacles 
and  subjects  of  influence,  until  it  penetrates  the  whole  mass, 
and  at  the  same  time  has  itself  been  greatly  modified.  Now 
this  I  take  to  be  the  case  with  Christian  thought ;  and  I 
think  that  every  new  phase  of  it  produced  great  changes  in 
each  age.  The  fundamental  faith  in  Christ  remains  the  same 
in  all  ages ;  but  the  ideas  which  make  up  the  total  of  Christian 
thought  are  continually  altering.  The  proof  of  this  will  be 
presented  throughout  the  vvhole  of  this  work.  All  I  wish  to 
maintain  at  present  is,  that  such  a  course  of  matters  is  the 
only  course  agreeable  to  what  we  see  now. 

The  errors  that  result  from  the  forgetfulness  of  this  prin- 
ciple affect  the  character  of  testimony  and  the  history  of 
opinion,  and  accordinglv  in  the  application  of  opinion  as  a 


26  IXTKODUCTION.  [Cuap.  III. 

test  we  must  g-uard  against  eunfouiuling-  the  opinions  of  one 
age  uitli  those  of  another.  We  shall  take  as  an  instance  the 
works  of  Ig-uatius.  If  the  letters  of  Ignatius  contain  doctrines 
different  or  additional  to  those  contained  in  the  letters  of 
Clemens  and  other  nearly  contemporary  writers,  we  have  just 
reason  to  doubt  their  genuineness.  Nor  is  it  enough  to  prove 
that  these  doctrines  are  contained  in  writings  twenty  or 
thirty  or  forty,  much  less  two  or  three  hundred  years  after  the 
supposed  time  of  Ignatius.  For  the  very  point  we  maintain 
is,  that  the  lapse  of  time  brought  about  changes,  that  these 
later  wTitings  contain  evidence  of  the  changes,  and  the  letters 
of  Ignatius  must  go  into  the  same  age  with  the  writings  with 
which  they  agree. 

A  forgetfulness  of  the  effects  produced  by  the  lapse  of  time 
has  also  led  to  a  misapprehension  of  the  statements  of  later 
writers  in  regard  to  earlier.  An  instance  vnW  best  explain 
what  is  meant. 

We  take  the  case  of  Eusebius.  We  wish  to  inquire  into 
the  history  of  a  particular  writer.  Now  we  may  rest  assured 
that  whatever  Eusebius  will  say,  he  will  speak  in  the  language 
of  his  own  time  and  circle.  As  Shakspere  attributes  to 
Julius  CiEsar  a  belief  in  the  devil,  Eusebius  will  not  fail  to 
identifv  the  opinions  of  his  predecessors  with  his  own.  If  a 
man  is  called  a  bishop,  he  ^vill  understand  the  term  to  mean 
just  such  a  bishop  as  he  saw  and  was.  But  it  would  be  a 
matter  of  great  blame  to  us  if  we  were  to  commit  the  same 
mistake.  We  must  examine  documents  contemporaneous  with 
the  writer,  ascertain  from  them  the  state  of  the  Church  and 
the  meaning  of  the  word  'bishop'  then,  and  undei*stand 
Eusebius  accordin":  to  the  lig-ht  which  we  thus  gain. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    LITERATURE    OF   THE    SUBJECT. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  devote  much  space  to  a  consideration 
of  modern  works  on  Patristic  literature.  There  are  several 
works  not  very  inaccessible  which  are  specially  designed  to 
convey  all  requisite  information  to  the  student. 

The  most  useful  of  these  is  the  Bibliotheca  Patristica  of 
John  George  Walch  (editio  nova  ab  Jo.  Traug.  Lebr.  Danzio 
adornata  :  Jena?  1834.  8vo;  wHtha  supplement  by  Danz  :  Jense 
1839.)  His  criticisms  as  well  as  his  learning  are  considerably 
superior  to  those  of  a  Roman  Catholic  writer  who  has  lately 
gone  over  the  same  path  : — Dr.  Michaelis  Permanederi  Biblio- 
theca Patristica  :  Tomus  Primus  :  Patrologia  generalis  (Lan- 
dishuti  1841.)  Tomus  Secundus  :  Patrologia  Specialis  (vol.  i. 
1842.)  These  works  will  supply  more  particular  information 
with  regard  to  the  authors  now  to  be  mentioned. 

The  works  relating  expressly  to  the  history  of  Christian 
literature  may  be  divided  into  two  great  classes — works  of 
real  research  and  value ;  and  mere  sketchy  productions  or 
summaries,  intended  either  for  prelections  or  for  the  masses. 
Each  of  these  classes  may  again  be  divided  into  Roman 
Catholic  and  Protestant. 

The  first  considerable  work  by  a  Roman  Catholic  on  the 
Fathers,  is  that  of  Antonius  Possevinus,  "  Apparatus  ad  Scrip- 
tores  V.  et  N.  T.  eorum  Interpretes,  Synodos  et  Patres  Latinos 
ac  Grsecos,  horum  Versiones,  Theologos  Scholasticos  quique 
contra  Hfereticos  egerunt."    (Venet,  1603;  Col.  Agripp.  1708. 


28  INTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap. 

ii.  fol.)  It  was  followed  by  a  work  of  Cardinal  Bellarmine'.s, 
Liber  de  Scriiitoribus  Eccl.  (Ronue  1613.  4to,)  which  belonj^ 
more  properly  to  the  sketchy  class,  and  is  not  much  more  than 
a  catalogue  of  the  writers  and  their  works.  It  was  however  so 
highly  esteemed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  several 
of  its  able  sons — Labbc,  Amir,  du  Saussay,  and  Casimir 
Oudin — re-edited  the  work,  and  added  laborious  appendices. 
Labbe's  Dissertations  were  published  in  2  vols.  8vo,  Paris  1660. 
Casimir  Oudin,  l)esides  publishing-  a  supplement  to  Bellarmine 
(Paris  1682.  8vo),  wrote  a  separate  commentary  on  ecclesiastical 
writers :  "  Casimiri  Oudini,  Commentarius  de  Scriptoribus 
Ecclesise  antiquis  illorum([ue  Scriptis  tam  impressis  quam 
manuscriptis  adhuc  extantibus  in  celebrioribus  Europse  biblio- 
thecis  a  Belhirmino,  Possevino,  Philippo  Labbeo,  Guilielmo 
Caveo,  Ludovico  Ellia  Du  Pin,  et  aliis  omissis  ad  annum 
MCCCCLX,  vel  ad  artem  typographicam  inventam  :  cum 
multis  dissertationibiis,  in  quibus  insigniorum  Ecclesiae  autorum 
opuscula  atque  alia  argumeuta  notabiliora  accurate  et  prolixe 
examinantur  (Tom.  iii.  Lips.  1722,  fol.)"  Before  the  appear- 
ance of  Oudin's  work,  several  valuable  contributions  to  Chris- 
tian literature  had  been  made.  Foremost  among  these  is 
Tillemont's  ^lemoires  pour  servir  a  FHistoire  Ecclesiastique 
des  six  premiers  siecles,  (Paris  1693,  xvi.  4to,)  which  treat  in 
the  fullest  manner  of  the  lives  of  the  Christian  writers.  This 
was  succeeded  by  a  work  which  has  been  praised  by  Protestants 
for  its  liberal  spirit :  Louis  Ellies  Du  Pin,  Nouvelle  Biblio- 
theque  des  Auteurs  Ecclesiastiques,  contenant  Fhi.stoire  de  leur 
vie,  le  catalogue,  la  critique,  et  la  chronologic  de  leurs  ouvrages  ; 
le  sommaire  de  ce  quails  contiennent ;  un  jugement  sur  leur 
style  et  sur  leur  doctrine;  et  le  denombrement  des  diiferentes 
editions  de  leurs  ttuvres  (Paris  1686-1 714,  xlvii.  8vo.) 

Du  Pin  afterwards  published  the  history  of  the  writers  of 
the  first  four  centuries  in  Latin  :  "  Xova  Bibliotheca  Auc- 
torum  Ecclesiasticorum  (Tom.  ii.  Paris  1703-15,  fol.) 

His  woi-ks  were  translated  into  English  (third  ed.  Dublin 
1  722,  3  vols,  fol.) 

Shortly  after  this  api)eared   a   work  of  vast   research   and 


IV.]  INTRODUCTIOy.  29 

learniii<2^  liy  Nicolas  Nouriy,  which  extended  however  only 
to  the  first  four  centuries.  It  was  called  "  Apparatus  ad 
Bibliothecam  maximam  veterum  patrum  et  antiquorum  scrip- 
torum  ecclesiastieorum  Lug-duni  editam,  Paris  (1703-17 15; 
2  torn,  fol.)^'  Many  of  his  dissertations  have  found  their 
way  into  the  various  editions  of  the  Christian  writers. 

The  work  of  Du  Pin,  though  much  praised  at  its  appearance, 
was  felt  by  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy  to  be  unsatisfactory  in 
its  judgments  on  the  Fathers,  and  it  was  affirmed  that  it  was 
also  very  defective.  To  remedy  these  defects,  the  Benedictine 
Remy  Ceillier  undertook  a  historj'  of  the  sacred  and  eccle- 
siastical writers;  but  Protestant  readers  will  not  regard  his 
production  as  so  fair  as  that  of  Du  Pin^s.  Its  title  is  "  Histoire 
Generale  des  Auteurs  Sacres  et  Ecclesiastiques,  qui  contient  leur 
vie,  le  catalogue,  la  critique,  le  jugement,  la  chronologic,  &c. 
Par  le  R.  P.  Dom  Remy  Ceillier."  (Paris  1729-63,  xxiii.  4to.) 
He  gives  an  account  not  merely  of  the  lives  but  of  the  theo- 
logy of  the  writers,  always  keeping  the  Roman  Catholic  dogmas 
in  view.  It  has  found  great  favour  with  the  French  clergy, 
and  is  now  republishing  with  additions,  principally  from  Roman 
Catholic  writers.    The  first  volume  appeared  in  1858,  at  Paris. 

In  more  modern  times  there  are  two  works  of  considerable 
importance  by  Roman  Catholic  writers.  They  both  treat 
more  or  less  fully  of  the  doctrines  as  well  as  of  the  literature 
of  the  Christians.  The  first  of  them  is  voluminous.  It 
is  styled  "P.  Gottfridi  Lumper  Monachi  Benedictini,  &c. 
Historia  Theologico-critiea  de  vita,  scriptis  atque  doctrina 
sanctorum  patrum  aliorumque  scriptorum  ecclesiastieorum 
trium  primorum  sseculorum  ex  virorum  doctissimorum  lite- 
rariis  monumentis  collecta."  Augustse  Vindelicorum,  1783- 
1 799,  xiii.  Svo.  It  is  a  remarkably  learned  work.  The  industry 
displayed  in  it  is  enormous,  and  the  writer  has  considerable 
critical  powers.  But  he  is  fettered  by  Roman  Catholic  tradi- 
tions and  sympathies.  He  devotes  considerable  space  to  the 
detail  of  the  legends  which  found  their  way  into  the  unau- 
thenticated  narratives  of  the  lives  of  the  early  Christians. 

The  other  work  is  by  a  man  of  great  religious  fervour  and 


;]()  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

high-toned  feeling",  wlio  laboured  dilig-ently  and  suecessfiilly 
in  the  field  of  patristic  study,  I.  A.  Moehler.  His  work  is 
named  "  Patrologie  oder  Christliche  Literaerg-esehichte,  aus 
dessen  hinterlassenen  Handschriften  mit  Erg-iinzung-en,  heraus- 
g'eg-ehen  von  Dr.  F.  X.  Reithmayr."  (Regenshurg  1840.)  It 
was  published,  as  the  title  implies,  after  his  death.  Reithmayr 
has  made  considerable  additions  to  the  work,  and  he  seems  to 
have  taken  liberties  with  the  manuscript  entrusted  to  him. 
It  is  a  decidedly  able  and  interesting-  work,  and  pervaded  by 
that  spirit  of  liberality  which  distinguished  Moehler  and  his 
school.  It  is  however  distinctly  Roman  Catholic  throughout. 
It  extends  only  to  the  first  three  centuries,  and  is  in  many 
respects  defective,  notwithstanding-  the  additions  of  Reithmayr. 
It  has  the  merit,  however,  of  being-  very  readable.  Remarks 
are  made  on  the  prominent  points  of  the  theology  of  the 
writers  as  well  as  on  their  lives,  and  a  list  of  the  principal 
editions  is  added.  The  work  is  not  liow  to  be  procured  in 
German,  but  there  is  a  French  translation^  of  it,  which  may 
be  had. 

Of  the  more  compendious  works  by  Roman  Catholic  writers, 
merely  the  names  of  the  writers  may  be  given.  First  on  the 
list,  and  of  some  importance  because  he  lived  at  a  time  when 
more  MSS  were  extant  than  are  now,  is  John  of  Tiittenheim, 
whose  work,  with  the  additions  of  Aubertus  ^Miroeus  relating 
to  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  is  given  in  Fabri- 
cius.  After  Mirseus  were  Sixtus  Senensis  (1575),  Stephanus 
Lusig-nanus  (1580),  Simon  de  Voyon  (1607),  Suffridus  Petri 
(1630),  Sardagna  (1772),  AVilhelmus  (1775),  Tobenz  (1779), 
Macarius  a  S.  Elia  (1781),  Schleiehert  (1777),  Stephanus  Wiest 
(1785),  Lang  (1809),  Winter  (1814),  Rueif  (1828),  Kaufmann 
(1832),  Busse  (1828,)  Goldwitzer  (1829),  Lochcrer  (1836), 
and  Annegarn  (1839). 

Here  should  be  mentioned  also  a  work,  the  tone  of  which  is 
very  much  in  harmony  with  that  of  Roman  Catholic  writers. 
It  is  by  Constantinus  R.  Contogones,  Professor  of  Theology 
in  the  university  of  Athens,  and  an  ardent  adherent  of  the 

a  Par  Jean  Colieti,  Lnuvnin   1844,  Svo. 


IV.]  INTRODUCTION.  M 

Greek  Church.  As  yet  only  two  vohimes  have  been  pul)lishecl 
of  this  work.  It  is  able  and  learned.  It  g-ives  an  account  of 
the  theology  of  the  writers  as  well  as  of  their  lives  and 
writings,  and  it  contains  short  notices  of  the  editions.  The 
title  of  the  work  is  as  follows  :  <^tAoAoyt/<r/  /cat  kpltikt]  laTopia 
T<av  aiTo  TTjs  a  M^'XP'  "^^^  V  ^KaTOi'TaeTr]pi.bos  aKixacrdvTcov  ayCuiv  ttJs 
CKKkria-ias  iraTipuiV  koL  jS>v  a-v/ypaixixdrcav  avrCov.  vtto  Kcavarav- 
Tivov  KoiToyovov,  Kadriyr]Tr]s  tijs  OeoXoyCa^  h>  re  tc5  vave7:uTTr}p.Lui 
'09S)vos  Kal  Tt]  eK/cXrja-taa-rtK?)  pi(ap€Lco  axo^fj.  ro'/xos  Trpwros, 
•iiepUxuiv  ra^  rpeis  Trpcoraj  kKaTovraeTiiplhas.  {iv  ''A6i]vaLS  it^5^* 
TopLos  bevTepoi,  -nepii^div  tijv  b'  eKaTovTaer-qpiba,  ^^53-) 

The  tone  of  Roman  Catholic  writers  is  generally  that  of 
profound  submission  to  ecclesiastical  tradition.  A  strong- 
defence  is  often  made  for  worthless  treatises  wdiich  exalt  the 
Church  and  praise  virginity.  Many  men  however  arose 
among  them  of  a  lil)eral  and  truthful  spirit,  though  these 
generally  had  to  suffer  for  their  fairness.  Ellies  du  Pin  had 
to  submit  to  a  recantation,  and  his  work  was  condemned  at 
Rome.  Oudin  tells  us  that  to  avoid  like  censure  he  did  not 
discuss  opinions,  but  confined  himself  to  the  examination  of 
the  genuineness  or  spuriousness  of  w^orks.  He  went  farther 
however  than  Ellies  du  Pin,  and  withdrew  entirely  from  the 
Roman  Church.  Those  Roman  Catholics  who  have  come 
under  the  influence  of  the  Tubingen  school  are  also  remark- 
able for  the  freedom  and  fairness  with  which  they  discuss 
patristic  subjects.  This  lil)erality  is  very  prominent  in  the 
work  of  Moehler,  and  yet  the  Roman  Catholic  respect  for 
tradition  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  is  likewise  very 
strong.  Indeed  he  says  in  his  work  that  he  hopes  it  will  have 
the  ed'ect  of  arousing  a  more  earnest  and  deeper  attachment 
to  the  principles  of  his  Church.  We  have  seen  him  praise 
the  critical  powers  of  Jerome,  and  he  extols  those  even  of 
Isidor  of  Se\nlla  and  Photius  ^.  He  therefore  readily  accepts 
statements  from  later  writers  which  viewed  as  historical 
evidence  are  utterly  worthless. 

The  only  systematic  work  of  importance  which  Protestants 

I'   Page  22. 


32  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

have  produced  on  early  Christian  literature  is  the  history  of 
Cave.  It  is  styled  "  Seriptorum  Ecelesiastieorum  Historia 
Literaria  a  Cliristo  nato  us([\ie  ad  sfcculum  XIV.^'  (First  part, 
Lend.  i6H<S,  willi  an  appendix  by  Wharton,  1689.  Second 
part,  with  an  a})pondix  hy  Robertus  Gerius.  Lend.  1698'^.) 
The  whole  work  was  repul^lished  after  the  death  of  Cave,  with 
additions  from  his  manuscript  notes,  at  O-xford,  1 740-43,  in 
two  volumes  folio.  It  was  reprinted  at  Basle  in  1741-5. 
Cave  wrote  a  variety  of  other  works  on  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian writers  in  Eng-lish ;  but  most  of  the  sketches,  while 
characterised  by  the  marked  individuality  of  the  writer,  by 
an  earnest  desire  for  the  truth,  and  by  extraordinary  eru- 
dition, contain  such  a  curious  jumble  of  stories,  credible  and 
incredible,  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  them.  In  fact 
this  blemish  attaches  to  his  great  work.  He  evidently 
formed  no  distinct  notion  of  the  nature  of  testimony,  he  does 
not  go  critically  into  an  examination  of  the  ^vitnesses,  and 
accordingly  his  work  cannot  be  relied  on,  nor  does  it  enable 
the  reader  to  form  an  opinion  for  himself. 

Among  the  Protestant  writers  who  have  given  a  more  or 
less  sketchy  account  of  the  history  of  Christian  literature, 
are  Melancthon,  Joannes  Schopf,  Joannes  Gerhard,  Joannes 
Bottsacus,  Joannes  Hiilsemannus,  Joannes  Chph.  Meelfiihrer, 
Joannes  Gottfr.  Olearius,  Abraham  Scultetus,  Varenius,  Chph. 
Sandius,  Casp.  Heunisch,  G.  Stolle,  Pestalozzi,  Engelhardt, 
Boehringer.  There  are  several  works  which  treat  simply  of 
the  lives  of  the  early  writers  and  martyrs,  and  several  which 
relate  only  to  a  particular  class  of  writers.  Among  these  are 
the  works  of  Tentzel,  Ittig,  Clericus,  and  Loescher. 

In  England,  the  works  expressly  on  the  Fathers,  besides 
those  of  Cave,  are  very  few. 

I.  Biographia  Ecclesiastica  ;  or,  the  Lives  of  the  most 
Eminent  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  who  flourish'd  in  the 
first  four  centuries.  Adorned  with  all  their  effigies,  curiousl}^ 
ingraven.     London  :  1 704.  2  vols.  8vo.    The  writer  quotes  no 

■^  This  is  the  edition  quoted  in  this  work  for  want  of  the  better. 


IV.]  ixTRonrcTiox.  s.i 

authorities.     The  ])ook  is  worthless,  except  for  its  curiously 
eug'raveu  effig-ies. 

2.  Evans  :  Biog-raphy  of  the  Early  Church  ;  by  the  Rev. 
Robert  Wilson  Evans,  M.A.  London,  1837.  Second  series: 
1839.  This  work  contains  the  lives  only  of  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  men  who  flourished  before  the  Arian  contro- 
versy. It  attempts  to  realize  the  circumstances  of  each.  It 
is  well  written,  conceived  in  a  devout  spirit,  and  does  not 
obtrude  High  Church  views  very  strong-ly.  There  is  no 
attempt  to  sift  evidence,  but  an  exceeding-  willingness  to 
believe  anything  said  to  the  credit  of  the  early  writers  hy 
Eusebius,  or  writers  anterior  to  him. 

3.  Narratives  of  the  Lives  of  the  more  eminent  Fathers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  interspersed  with  copious  quotations 
from  their  writings,  &c.  By  the  Rev.  Robert  Cox,  A.M. 
London,  181 7,  8vo.  This  work  also  is  not  critical.  It  is 
conceived  in  a  devout  spirit,  and  is  one  of  the  best  of  its 
kind. 

4.  The  Book  of  tlu;  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
the  Spirit  of  their  Writings.  London,  1837,  8vo.  The  writer 
of  this  work  does  not  meddle  with  more  than  one  or  two  of 
the  Fathers  v.ho  lived  before  the  Nicene  Council.  This  is 
the  case  with  another  popular  book  of  the  same  nature,  "  The 
Popular  Preachers  of  the  Ancient  Church :  their  Lives,  their 
Manner,  and  their  Work.^^     By  the  Rev.  W.  Wilson,  M.A. 

There  are  several  other  works  which  profess  to  give  accounts 
of  the  lives  and  works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies ;  such  as  a  very  small  book,  called  Barecroft's  Ars 
Concionandi  (17 15,  8vo.) ;  Dr.  Adam  darkens  Concise  View  of 
the  Succession  of  Sacred  Literature  (Lond.  1830,  8vo.),  which 
is  very  concise  indeed ;  and  book  first  of  Riddle's  Christian 
Antiquities  (Lond.  1839,  8vo.) ;  but  they  do  not  require  special 
notice. 

All  the  works  which  treat  directly  of  the  Fathers  in 
English,  except  Cavers,  are  professedly  popular.  They  do 
not  discuss  the  authorities  which  they  cite,  and  they  often 
dispense  with  authorities  altogether. 

VOL.   I.  D 


34  IX  riWDL'CTIoy.  [Chap. 

Those  in  England  ulio  liave  l)U.sie<l  themselves  with  the 
stud}'  of  the  early  Christian  literature,  have  almost  invariably 
given  the  results  of  their  investigations  in  works  devoted  to 
doctrines,  or  to  the  history  and  antiquities  of  the  Church. 

Besides  the  works  now  mentioned,  there  are  several  which 
treat  exclusively  of  Latin  Christian  writers.  These  will  be 
mentioned  in  their  place.  There  are  also  several  collections 
of  dissertations  on  the  Fathers,  the  best  known  of  which  is 
Spreiiger's  Thesaurus  Rei  Patristica?,  &c.  Wirceb.  1784-92, 
iii.  4to. 

I  conclude  with  a  notice  of  the  collections  of  the  Fathers. 
Of  course  it  is  generally  sufficient  to  have  one  of  these.  If 
any  one  has  Gallandi,  or  jNIigne,  he  is  well  furnished;  but 
they  do  not  supersede  the  use  of  separate  editions.  They  are 
generally  called  Great  Libraries. 

The  first  great  collection  of  importance  was  that  of  Mar- 
garinxis  de  la  Eigne  (8  vols.  fol.  Paris  1575),  frequently 
reprinted.  The  next  important  work  is  Henr.  Canisii  Anti- 
qua3  Lectiones  (Ingolst.  1601-8,  vi.  4to.),  and  afterwards 
reprinted  under  the  care  of  Basnage.  The  library  of  De  la 
Bigne  was  published  at  Cologne,  with  a  supplement,  edited 
principally  by  Andreas  Schottus,  1622;  and  at  Paris,  1639, 
with  a  supplement  by  IMorellius.  Another  edition,  with 
additions,  was  published  at  Paris  in  1654;  with  still  more 
additions  at  Lyons,  1677.  The  library  of  De  la  Bigne 
was  completely  surpassed  by  the  Bibliotheca  Veterum 
Patrum  Antiquorumque  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum,  pos- 
trema  Lugdunensi  longe  locupletior  atque  accuratior.  Opera 
et  Studio  Andr.  Gallandii,  Presb.  Congreg.  Oratorii  Venet. 
(Ven.  1765-88,  xiv.  fol.)  A  library  of  the  Fathers  is  pubHsh- 
ing  in  Paris  by  La  JMigne,  "  Patrologia?  Cursus  Completus," 
with  notes  and  many  very  important  dissertations;  and  in 
Latin  by  Caillau  and  Guillon. 

There  are  also  several  important  translations  of  the  works 
of  the  Fathers.  They  generally  discuss  the  lives  of  the 
writers.  The  two  best  known  of  these  are  Rossler:  Bibliothek 
dcr  Kirchonvater  in  Uebersetzungen  und  Ausziigen.      (Lips. 


J 


IV.]  7.V  THOD  UC  TIOX.  35 

1 776-86,  X.  8vo.)  and  Genoude  :  Les  Peres  de  VEg-lise,  traduits 
en  Francais.    (viii.  8vo.)  ;   a  strong-ly  Roman  Catholic  work. 

There  are  also  two  works  in  English  of  a  similar  nature,  but 
not  so  complete  or  satisfactory  :  — 

The  Christian  Fathers  of  the  First  and  Second  Centuries  : 
their  principal  remains  at  larg-e,  \\4th  selections  from  their 
other  writings,  &c.  By  the  Rev.  E.  Bickersteth.  (London, 
1838.)      And—  ■ 

The  ^Yritings  of  the  Early  Christians  of  the  Second 
Century,  &c.  Collected  together  and  first  translated  complete 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Giles.      (London  1857.) 

There  is  no  satisfactory  lexicon  of  Patristic  Greek.  Two 
efforts  have  been  made  to  supply  the  want.  The  first  is  the 
well  knovrn  work  of  Suicer,  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus,  e  Patri- 
bus  Graecis,  ordine  alphabetico,  exhibens  quaecunque  Phrases, 
Ritus,  Dogmata,  Hsereses  et  hujusmodi  alia  spectant,  &c. 
(Amstel.  1682,  fol.  editio  sec.  1728.)  Suicer^s  work  is  as  much 
a  dictionary  of  facts  as  of  words.  The  other  attempt  is  A 
Glossary  of  Later  and  Byzantine  Greek,  by  E.  A.  Sophocles, 
forming  Vol. VII.  New  Series,  of  the  Memoii's  of  the  American 
Academy.  (Cambridge  and  Boston  i860,  4to.)  The  author 
deserves  the  greatest  credit  for  his  diligence  and  learning; 
and,  though  necessarily  imperfect,  his  book  supplies  a  very 
great  want. 


D  2 


CHAPTER    V. 


THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL. 


Our  account  of  the  writers  who  have  dealt  critically  with 
early  Christian  literature  would  be  defective  without  a  special 
discussion  of  the  Tubing-en  School.  The  members  of  this 
school  are  properly  speakings  theologians,  and  the  appropriate 
place  for  a  review  of  their  works  would  seem  to  be  in  our 
notice  of  the  treatment  of  early  Christian  theolog}-.  The 
school  however  is  remarkable  for  its  want  of  any  Christian 
theology  of  its  own ;  and  it  has  in  consequence  occupied 
itself  with  criticising  the  theology  of  others,  and  the  docu- 
ments in  which  that  theology  is  contained,  from  an  historical 
point  of  view. 

The  Tiibingen  school  is  composed  of  a  considerable  number  of 
eminent  theological  scholars,  who  differ  very  widely  from  each 
other  in  many  opinions,  but  agree  in  what  they  call  their 
critical  mode.  The  head  and  patriarch  of  the  school  was  the 
late  Dr.  Baur,  Professor  of  Evangelical  Theology  in  Tubingen. 

Drawing  their  ]>hilosoph}'  from  Hegel,  they  look  upon 
Christianity  as  an  ordinary  phenomenon,  to  be  explained  as 
any  evolution  in  history  ought  to  be  explained.  History, 
they  maintain,  has  always  to  exhibit  the  idea  pervading 
and  energising  the  circumstances.  It  must  ever  distinguish 
between  mere  appearances  and  what  really  and  eternally 
is.  These  ideas  show  themselves  as  tendencies  of  the 
human  mind  running  through  an  age ;  and  a  development 
takes  place  when  contrary  tendencies  struggle  against  each 
other,  and   a  unity  arises  out  of  the  struggle.     Christianity 


CiiAP.  v.]  INTRODUCTIOX.  3/ 

was  such  a  struggle  of  tendencies  :  Jewish  Christianity  on 
the  one  hand,  and  heathen  Christianity  on  the  other,  being" 
the  two  great  tendencies.  Jewish  Christianity  sought  to  con- 
fine Christianity  within  the  rites  of  Judaism  :  it  was  therefore 
national,  particular,  and  aristocratic.  Heathen  Christianity, 
on  the  other  hand,  proclaimed  all  men  alike  in  God's  sight. 
Piud  was  the  preacher  of  this  universalism.  "  The  Pauline 
universalism  indeed  contains  nothing  that  could  not  be  re- 
garded originally  as  an  essential  momentum  of  the  self-con- 
sciousness of  Jesus  ^.'^  Yet  Jesus  did  not  give  expi-ession  to 
this  universalism.  Such  a  course  would  have  repelled  those 
whom  He  wished  to  conciliate.  Even  many  of  the  elder 
apostles  did  not  attain  to  the  univei-salism  of  Paul  ;  and 
after  the  apostles  died,  Jewish  Christianity  gained  the  upper 
hand  in  wide  regions  of  the  world.  A  new  element  how- 
ever made  its  appearance,  seen  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  which 
succeeded  in  reconciling  the  particularism  of  Jewish  Christi- 
anity with  the  universalism  of  Paul,  and  hence  arose  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  mission  of  Gnosis  was  to  give  ade- 
quate expression  to  Christianity  as  the  absolute  religion.  It 
was  thus  a  definite  form  of  a  philosophy  of  religion.  These  are 
the  main  features  of  the  Baurian  explanation  of  Christianity. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  Hegelianism — to  show  that 
the  philosophy  of  history  is  not  histor}^,  and  to  exhibit  the 
fatal  mistake  of  Baur  in  taking  the  philosophy  of  Christianity 
for  Christianity  itself.  I  have  to  do  \Aith  Baur^'s  theory  only 
as  it  affects  the  treatment  of  early  Christian  literature  by  him 
and  the  rest  of  the  Tiil)ingen  school.  Now  the  great  and 
primary  fault  of  this  school  in  this  aspect  is  their  disregard 
of  historical  evidence.  Their  philosophy  does  not  permit 
them  to  believe  in  a  miracle.  They  must  therefore  dis- 
honour the  documents  in  which  miracles  are  related.  But 
if  they  can  reject  the  evidence  of  books  so  well  attested  as 
some  at  least  of  our  Gospels,  what  will  they  not  do  \Nath  other 

"    Die  Tiibinger  Scliule  und  ihre  Stelliing  ziir  Gcgenwart,  von  Dr.  F.  Ch. 
Baur,   p.  ^f.  :  Tiibingen  1859. 


3S  INTROUUCTIOX.  [Chap. 

and  later  documents  for  whieli  there  is  only  tlie  same  kind 
of  testimony  l)ut  a  less  amount?  Tlie  TulMn<];'en  school  thus 
have  felt  themselves  forecd  to  throw  almost  the  whole  of  the 
documents  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era  into  one  g-eneral  unauthentieated  mass.  Some  have 
spared  a  few^;  some  have  cast  all  into  uncertainty.  To 
have  thus  by  negative  criticism  brought  these  books  into  the 
class  of  the  spurious,  they  reckon  no  great  accomplishment. 
Previous  Rationalism  had  done  as  much  as  this.  The  task 
of  the  school  is,  by  means  of  ideas,  to  sift  these  writings, 
to  determine  their  oi-igin,  to  find  out  their  authorship,  and 
to  discover  their  date.  Criticism  of  this  nature  they  believe 
is  the  only  sure  kind,  being  based  on  that  which  is ;  on  the 
Idea,  not  on  mere  individual  appearances  c. 

Now,  however  satisfactory  the  pursuit  of  dates  and  authors 
by  means  of  ideas  or  tendencies  may  be  to  a  Hegelian,  to 
a  common  mortal  the  work  seems  utterly  useless,  and  more 
like  an  effort  of  arbitrary  fancy  and  caprice  than  of  soxuid 
reason.  Let  us  take  an  instance.  If  none  of  the  so-called 
letters  of  Paul  are  well  authenticated,  if  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  is  not  an  historical  book,  how  is  it  possible  for  Baur 
to  determine  what  was  Paul's  character,  and  from  that  cha- 
racter to  infer  that  the  letters  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans 
and  Corinthians  are  in  harmony  with  it,  and  the  letters  to 
the  Philippians  and  the  Colossians  are  not?  On  the  contrary, 
we  should  be  inclined  to  suspect  that  though  Baur  fancies 
he  is  led  in  his  selection  of  these  epistles  by  his  idea,  he 
is  misled  by  a  pet  theory,  and  sets  them  down  as  genuine 
because  he  can  find  some  show  of  reason  in  them  for  the 
notion  that  Paul  and  Peter  differed  from  each  other,  and  that 
that  difference  was  a  serious  one,  and  that  therefore,  as  he 
infers,  it  must  have  continued  for  a  long  period.     And  one 

•>  Baur  himself  regards  the  letters  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians, 
and  Romans,  as  in  the  main  genuine.  His  scholar  Bruno  Bauer  has  rejected 
all.  The  only  otlier  book  in  the  New  Testament  which  may  possibly  be 
genuine,  according  to  Baur,  is  John's  Apocalypse. 

•^  See  Schwcsrlcr's  Nachapn.s;toliches  Zeitalter,  vol.  i.  p.  lo. 


v.]  IXTRODUCTIOX.  ;J!> 

is  the  more  confirmed  in  this  idea  of  the  arbitrariness  of 
procedure  by  the  circumstance  that  the  various  members 
of  the  school  difler  very  widely  from  each  other ;  that  no 
sooner  does  one  member  construct,  by  means  of  his  conception 
of  the  idea,  than  his  neighbour  destroys  and  builds  anew  in 
another  way.  Thus  Schwegler^s  work  of  construction  is  most 
effectively  pulled  to  pieces  by  Ritschl,  who  in  the  first 
edition  of  his  book  proceeded  according-  to  the  same  mode  of 
criticism. 

As  it  is  impossible  in  the  body  of  my  work  to  enter  into 
the  reasonings  of  the  Tiibingen  school,  it  may  be  as  well 
here,  once  for  all,  to  record  the  main  results  of  this  tran- 
scendental ciiticism  as  given  in  Schwegler's  Nachapostolisehes 
Zeitalter.  The  very  exhibition  of  these  results  will  be  more 
than  enough  for  most  Eno'lish  readers. 

Schwegler  supposes  a  remarkable  contrariety  to  exist 
between  the  original  Christianity  and  the  Pauline  doctrines ; 
and  that  only  towards  the  end  of  the  second  or  beginning 
of  the  third  century  were  these  elements  reconciled.  The 
reconciliation  of  these  elements  was  the  moving  force  in  the 
Church.  The  first  form  of  Christianity  was  Ebionitism, 
seen  in  the  apostles  Peter,  James,  and  John,  and  represented 
by  the  gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  which  was  the  only  gospel 
in  use  up  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  (vol.  i.  p.  215.) 
The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  a  form  of  this  gospel  (p.  241), 
marking  the  Catholic  conclusion  of  the  Ebionitic  gospel  litera- 
ture. The  Church  was  Ebionitic  up  to  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  PauFs  letter  to  the  Roman  Church  proves 
that  it  was  in  his  time  El)ionitic;  and  the  first  literary 
document  of  the  Roman  Church,  the  Pastor  of  Hermas,  is 
Judaic  (p.  328).  It  must  have  been  written  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  In  about  twenty  years  after 
the  composition  of  Hermas,  i.e.  between  150  and  160  a.d., 
appeared  Hegesippus,  the  earliest  historian  of  the  Church, 
and  thoroughly  Ebionitic  (p.  342  ff),  a  pet  writer  with 
Schwegler.  The  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  exhibit  a  peculiar 
phenomenon — a  mixture  of  Ebionitism  with  Platonism,  the 


40  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

Lou^os-doctrine  being  Platonic.  Sehweg'k'r  thus  speaks  of 
the  Ebionitie  elements:  "  Ebiunitie  is  Justin^s  whole  view 
of  the  ori<^"inal  eoiineelion  and  object  of  tiie  incarnation  of 
Christ  ;  Ebionitie  his  complete  silence  in  regard  to  the 
Apostle  Paul,  whose  letters  he  never  quotes,  into  whose 
peculiar  doctrines  {Lehrbegrijf)  he  nowhere  enters,  and  whose 
apostolic  authority  he  consequently  seems  to  hav^e  rejected; 
Ebionitie  his  rough  form  of  Chiliasmus,  his  Demonology, 
and  the  horror  at  the  eating  of  sacrificial  flesh  connected 
therewith  ;  his  view  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  he  seems  to 
have  reckoned  among  the  angels  ;  his  angel-worship ;  his 
valuing  the  Old  Testament  so  much  above  the  New.'  (p.  360.) 

The  second  stage  of  the  Church's  progress  finds  the  Church 
Ebionitie,  but  arguing  with  a  peaceful  teudenej'.  This  is  seen 
in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  in  which  the  foundation  is 
thoroughly  Ebionitie;  but  they  "form  an  intermediate  step 
in  the  process  of  the  development  of  Ebionitism  into  Catho- 
licism." (p.  378.)  He  takes  the  Clementines  as  "really 
representing  the  consciousness  of  their  time.  As  their  writer 
thought  and  wrote,  so  thought  the  Church  [so  dachte  mail)  in 
Rome  towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century."  (p.  405.) 
Tlie  original  Apostolic  Constitutions  are  of  the  same  charac- 
ter, and  exhibit  the  same  stage  of  development,  as  also  do  the 
Letter  of  James  and  the  second  Letter  of  Clemens. 

The  third  stage  brings  us  to  Catholicism — a  state  of  neu- 
trality and  a  peace-conclusion,  as  he  calls  it.  This  stage  is 
represented  by  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (p.  455),  written  towards 
the  end  of  the  second  century;  in  the  Clementine  Recognitions, 
written  between  212  and  230,  which  are  a  Catholic  form  of  the 
Homilies  ;  and  in  the  Second  Ei)istle  of  Peter,  which  he  looks 
on  as  the  "  last  stone  of  the  Ebionitie  development-series." 
[Schluss-stehi  der  Ebionitischen  Entwicklungsreilie,  p.  490.) 

Parallel  with  this  Ebionitie  development-series  runs  the 
Pauline.  Also  in  it  there  can  be  distinguished  three  periods 
or  stages  analogous  to  the  Ebionitie:  a  decidedly  Pavdine; 
an  intermediate,  conciliatory ;  and  lastly,  a  catholicizing, 
(vol.  ii.  p.  I.) 


v.]  INTRODCCTIOX.  41 

The  type  of  the  first  staj^e  isfound  in  the  First  Letter  of  Peter. 
It  was  written  by  one  of  the  Pauline  party  in  the  time  of  the 
Trajan  persecution.     Alonj*-  with  it  goes  the  Kj/puy/xa  UiTpov. 

The  principal  writings  of  the  second  stage  are  the  Gospel 
of  Luke,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  First  Letter  of 
Clemens.  In  the  Gospel  of  Luke  the  Pauline  element  appears 
as  the  groundwork  of  the  Gospel,  the  Judaistic  as  interpola- 
tions and  additions.  The  Gospel  must  have  been  written 
after  the  Trajan  persecution.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is 
also  a  work  of  the  same  character, — a  tendency-writing  to 
conciliate  the  Petrine  to  the  Pauline  party.  It  is  freer  in  its 
handling  of  historical  matters.  It  was  written  some  time 
between  the  Trajan  persecution  and  the  blossoming  of  Gnosis, 
(p.  1 1 8.)  The  First  Letter  of  Clemens  is  also  an  intermediate 
work.  Its  standpoint  is  that  of  a  fair  middle,  of  an  honour- 
able capitulation,  (p.  128.)  It  cannot  have  been  written  by 
Clemens,  nor  by  a  contemporary  of  tlie  apostles.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians  also  belongs  to  this  stage. 

The  types  of  the  third  stage  ai-e  the  Pastoral  Letters  and 
the  Letters  of  Ignatius.  The  Pastoral  Letters  were  written 
some  time  about  169.  They  express  a  desire  for  unity — the 
main  idea  by  which  the  Pauline  and  Ebionitic  elements  were 
reconciled.  The  Letter  of  Polycarp  is  a  mere  shadow  of  the 
Pastoral  Letters,  written  a'uout  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  circles. 

The  Ignatian  Letters  he  calls  the  Programme  of  Catholicity 
in  the  process  of  growth  [Programm.  tier  werdendoi  Katholicitdt) . 
They  contain  the  Pauline  idea  of  universality  and  the  Petrine 
idea  of  unity  or  uniformity  worked  out  in  a  logical  and  all- 
sided  manner.  The  combination  of  these  two  ideas  resulted 
in  the  Catholic  Church,    (p.  161.) 

Schwegler  then  discusses  the  momenta  of  Catholicity,  and 
among  these  Gnosis  especially.  We  pass  over  this  part  of  his 
book  as  having  little  to  do  with  the  present  purpose,  only 
remarking  that  he  here  finds  a  place  for  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas, which  he  saj's  was  written  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century,    (p.  241.) 


42  TXTRODl'CTION.  [Chap. 

Then  in  the  ruinth  Book  he  ])roeee(ls  to  show  liow  Ebion- 
itism  and  PauHnism  developed  into  Catholieism  in  the  churches 
of  Asia  Minor.  The  principle  of  development  is  different 
from  what  it  was  in  Rome.  In  Rome  it  was  politico-ecclesi- 
astical; in  Asia  Minor  speculativo-theolog-ical.  (j).  246.)  The 
Roman  Church  produced  the  unity  of  the  episcopal  system ; 
the  Asiatic  Church  the  Log^os-idea  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  Letter  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians  gives  the  first 
clue  to  the  state  of  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor.  They  were 
Ebionitic.  (p.  247.)  The  earliest  and  most  important  docu- 
ment of  this  Ebionitic  Church  is  the  Apocalypse  of  John, 
written  by  that  apostle  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
(pp.  249-50.)  The  age  of  John  continued  for  a  considerable 
time,  and  found  its  most  complete  expression  in  Montanism, 
the  successor  of  the  Apocalyptic  age. 

At  the  same  time  the  Logos-doctrine  sprang  up  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Jewish  or  Ebionitic  notion  of  Christ.  The  first 
representative  of  this  Pauline  j)hase  is  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  later  the  so-called  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the 
Colossians  and  Ephesians.  In  the  meantime  Montanism 
added  to  the  elements  of  thought  by  the  first  presentation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  divine  ;  and  Montanism  was  thus  the  first 
that  brought  to  light  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  (pp.  339-40.) 
Last  and  latest  of  all  comes  the  Gospel  of  John,  entirely 
Catholic  in  its  spirit,  and  yet  not  without  traces  of  a  Jewish 
element,  which  however  is  glorified,    (p.  346.) 

Such  is  the  reconstruction  of  the  early  Church  history  and 
literature  according  to  the  doctrine  of  tendencies.  One  is 
utterly  amazed  how  a  man  could  deliberately  sit  down,  and 
day  after  day,  casting  to  the  winds  every  fragment  of  his- 
torical e\adence,  build,  and  build  alter  his  own  fashion,  as 
Schwegler  has  done.  He  seldom  troubles  himself  about  giving 
reasons  for  his  opinions.  He  merely  brings  out  his  perceptions 
or  illustrations  of  the  tendencies.  Of  course  he  does  occasion- 
ally appeal  to  historical  testimony — human  nature  must  come 
out  sometimes;  but  his  appeals  are  generally  very  perverted 
and  unsatisfactory;  and  the  most  signal  proof  of  this  is,  that 


v.]  INTRODUCTION.  43 

almost  the  whole  scheme  rests  on  the  statements  and  thouo-hts 
of  a  work  whieli  is  purely  fictitious^  the  Clementine  Homilies. 
The  tremendous  importance  of  this  work  to  the  Bauriau 
school  is  a  damaging"  sign  of  its  inherent  weakness. 

I  need  not  say  that  I  regard  the  whole  of  the  Baurian 
scheme  to  be  a  pure  fiction,  as  Bunsen  has  justly  named  it. 
The  difference  between  Peter  and  Paul,  on  which  it  is  based, 
I  believe  vanished  very  soon;  and,  as  I  have  said,  I  do  not 
think  there  is  the  slightest  proof  that  two  gospels  were 
preached  by  the  apostles  :  the  Pauline  by  Paul,  and  the 
Petrine  by  the  rest  of  the  apostles.^^  They  all  preached  one 
and  the  same  Saviour,  and  therefore  one  and  the  same  gospel. 
The  only  circumstance  that  gives  a  colour  to  Baur's  theory  is 
this  : — The  apostles  continued  in  the  practice  of  their  Jewish 
rites,  as  far  as  we  know,  up  to  the  last.  The  point  is  by  no 
means  a  settled  one ;  but  the  most  likely  opinion  is,  that  they 
did  observe  the  Jewish  Law  in  at  least  many  of  its  institutions. 
But  this  circumstance  gives  simply  an  appearance  of  feasibility 
to  the  Baurian  theory.  When  we  look  at  the  real  state  of 
affairs  every  appearance  vanishes.  The  essential  belief  of 
Christianity  was  a  belief  in  Christ — a  confidence  in  Him  that 
He  would  save  from  sin.  Whoever  in  early  times  had  this 
belief  was  reckoned  and  treated  as  a  Christian.  He  might 
continue  his  Jewish  practices,  or  he  might  not.  That  was  a 
matter  of  indifference.  Faith  in  Christ  alone  was  absolutely 
necessary.  There  is  not  the  slightest  shadow  of  a  proof  that 
any  of  the  apostles,  or,  subsequent  to  the  Jerusalem  confer- 
ence, that  any  of  the  members  of  the  Church  within  the  first 
two  centuries,  insisted  on  the  observance  of  Jewish  rites  as 
essential  to  salvation.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  the  best  of 
proof  that  those  who  did  insist  on  the  essential  nature  of  the 
Judaistic  rites  felt  the  Church  too  liberal  for  them,  and  left 
it.  The  proof  of  these  statements  will  appear  in  the  course  of 
this  work.     And  the  fact  is  that  both  Baur  and  Schwegler 

^  Baur  himself  calls  it  a  "  doppeltes  Evangeliuni  :"  Das  Christenthuiu  und 
die  Christliche  Kirche  (ler  drei  ersten  Jalirhunderte,  ji.  si.  ( Second  edition, 
Tubingen,  i860.) 


44  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

might  have  seen  this  if  they  had  defined  their  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity and  their  P;iuline  Christianity.  If  Jewish  Christianity 
did  not  insist  on  the  practice  of  Jewish  rites  as  essential,  then 
it  was  not  opposed  to  Pauline  Christianity.  Only  on  the 
supposition  that  it  did  will  the  Baurian  theory  be  of  any  use. 
But  the  Tubingen  school  have  entirely  failed  to  prove  this 
poiut;  indeed  have  intentionally  or  unintentionally  not  at- 
tempted the  proof.  In  fact  in  none  of  the  writings  which  will 
come  under  our  notice  shall  we  find  the  least  indication  that 
any  of  the  writers  were  so  Jewish-Christian  as  to  condemn 
the  Pauline  party  for  not  observing  the  Jewish  rites.  And 
all  that  Baur  and  Schwegler  have  done  is  simply  to  point  out 
the  traces  of  certain  beliefs  which  to  their  minds  indicate  a 
Jewish  origin.  But  these  very  beliefs  were  perfectly  consonant 
with  Paulinism ;  na}',  many  of  them  were  the  very  beliefs  of 
the  Apostle  Paul®. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  we  have  to  take  into  account ,  that 
beyond  the  early  documents  of  the  New  Testament,  that  is, 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  shall  not  find  in  any 
well  authenticated  work  any  statement  of  any  kind  to  the 
effect  that  tiicre  existed  a  Pauline  and  a  Petrine  party.  Both 
parties,  as  far  as  they  belong  to  the  end  of  the  first  century 
and  to  the  second  century,  are  indebted  to  the  tendency-criti- 
cism for  their  origination. 

While  thus  speaking  of  the  Tiil)ingen  school,  I  wish  at  the 
same  time  to  state  my  belief  that  the}'  are  thoroughly  honest 
men,  earnest  in  their  search  after  truth,  and  that  they  deserve 
much  praise  for  their  fearlessness  and  industry.  If  they  were  not 
honest  men  thc}^  would  have  agreed  far  more  frequently  than 
they  have  done.  And  their  differences  will  necessarily  increase 
as  they  go  on  in  their  researches,  because  the  fundamental  idea 
is  a  wrong  one,  and  their  philosophy  is  not  well  adapted  at 
least  for  historical  purposes.   And  this  too  I  take  to  be  a  reason 

•  Ritschl's  work  on  tlie  Altcatliolische  Kirche  shows  this  in  a  very  satis- 
f:u;tory  manner.  See  for  instance  his  criticism  of  Schwegler's  reasons  for 
re;'arilin';  Justin  Martyr  as  Ehionitic. 


v.]  I  yTRODl'CTJOX.  4ii 

why,  wlioii  1  g-lanee  over  their  peribrmanees  and  sum  up  the 
fruits  of  their  own  investigations,  I  find  no  tangible  progress. 
There  has  been  a  vast  deal  of  industry,  of  hard  study,  of 
honest  investigation;  but,  as  far  as  substantial  fruit  is  con- 
cerned, there  is  not  much  :  rather  there  is  ^vide^  and  wider 
confusion,  greater  and  greater  perplexity.  The  only  fact  which 
seems  to  come  out  plainer  and  plainer  is,  that  no  good  can 
be  reached  by  this  new  mode  of  criticism.  And  this  is  all  the 
more  remarkable  that  most  members  of  the  school  are  men  of 
considerable  powers.  Baur  himself,  when  he  is  not  misled  by 
his  ideas  and  tendencies,  is  clear  and  forcil)le;  as  in  his  Letter 
to  Bunsen  on  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  and  in  part  of  his  work 
on  the  Origin  of  Episcopacy.  The  same  remark  might  be 
made  of  Hilgenfeld  and  of  others.  And  they  all  deserve  the 
greatest  credit  for  the  fresh  life  which  they  have  given  to  the 
thorough  study  of  the  early  Christian  writers. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

EARLY    CHRISTIAN   THEOLOGY. — MODE   OF   TREATMENT. 

X  HE  second  part  of  our  subject  is  the  exhibition  of  doctrines. 
This  exhibition  differs  from  what  is  given  in  books  on  the 
history  of  dogmas^  in  that  the  whole  of  a  man's  doctrines 
are  presented  at  once,  and  the  connection  of  the  opinions  of 
one  with  those  of  another  is  left  to  the  reader's  own  investig-a- 
tion.  An  objection  also  may  be  taken  to  the  mode  of  pre- 
senting these  doctrines,  in  that  it  does  not  bring  before  the 
mind  the  consecution  of  ideas  in  the  writer's  conception  of  the 
doctrines.  Especially  the  leading  idea  of  the  particular  writer 
is  not  brought  so  prominently  forward  as  perhaps  some  would 
like  ^.  This  however  is  not  an  objection  of  any  moment. 
What  I  wish  to  present  is  an  accurate  statement  of  what  these 
men  did  believe;  and  I  venture  on  an  explanation  of  the 
central  points  of  these  beliefs  only  when  I  think  that  there 
really  were  central  points,  and  that  these  central  points  are 
plainly  to  be  seen.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  most  of  them 
did  riot  think  systematically,  and  that  though  it  may  be  of 
advantage  for  us  to  arrange  their  opinions  systematically,  yet 
we  do  them  considerable  injustice  thereby.  For  we  present  as 
hard  intellectual  propositions  what  in  them  were  living  and 
energising  truths. 

*    Hilgenfekl  for  instance  haus  urged   this  objection  against  Schliemann's 
presentation  of  the  Clementine  doctrines. 


Chap.  VI.]  I X T RO 1)  C CTIOX.  47 

I  liave  made  a  distinetion  in  my  treatment  of  the  opinions 
of  the  early  and  later  writers.  In  the  ease  of  the  former,  up 
till  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  I  have  adduced  every  passage  which 
seemed  to  me  to  hear  on  theolog-ical  questions.  The  reason 
for  so  doing  is,  that  I  wish  as  far  as  possihle  to  enahle  my 
readers  to  determine  for  themselves  what  doctrines  are  not 
mentioned.  For  the  omissions  are  hy  far  the  most  signifi- 
cant feature  of  these  writers  to  our  time.  Besides  this,  the 
language  of  these  writers  is  more  indefinite,  and  can  therefore 
be  more  easily  distorted,  than  that  of  later  writers.  When 
we  approach  the  time  of  Irenseus,  doctrines  come  out  more  in 
the  shape  of  direct  propositions,  and  the  writers  become  more 
conscious  not  merely  of  what  they  believe  but  of  what  they 
do  not  believe.  It  is  sufficient  to  adduce  these  precise  state- 
ments of  theirs,  which  when  once  made  settle  the  question  of 
their  beliefs. 

The  one  great  requisite  in  the  treatment  of  doctrines  is 
fairness.  The  temptations  to  be  partial  and  one  sided  are 
exceedingly  strong.  One  must  therefore  approach  these 
writers  with  a  single  desire  for  historical  truth,  with  a 
willingness  to  enter  into  the  thoughts  of  the  writers,  and 
with  a  resolution  as  far  as  possible  to  relate  the  truths  held 
by  them  without  any  colouring  from  his  own  mind. 

The  two  great  temptations  in  the  treatment  of  doctrines 
are,  to  forget  the  effects  of  the  lapse  of  time,  and  to  seek 
merely  one's  own  oi^inions  in  the  statements  of  the  early 
writers. 

In  the  first  case  we  are  apt  to  forget  how  totally  different 
the  age  of  the  early  Christians  was  from  ours,  how  different 
the  modes  of  thinking  that  prevailed  among  them,  and  how 
various  were  the  agencies  around  them  that  were  influencing 
their  modes  of  thought  and  expression. 

In  the  second  case  we  go  to  the  Christian  writers  with  the 
hope  of  finding  confirmation  of  our  own  opinions.  We  look 
upon  these  opinions  as  the  only  true  ones.  We  trust  that  the 
early  Christians  also  held  them,  and  wherever  we  see  the 
slightest  resemblance  to  them  we  pronounce  an  identity  of 


48  lyrnoDrcTiox.  [cnAi-. 

beliefs.  AVe  sliiill  have  more  to  say  of  these  causes  of  error 
wlien  we  survey  tlie  liistory  of  the  treatment  of  doctrines. 

At  tlie  same  time,  however,  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  is 
scarcely  possible,  perhaps  I  should  sa}-  it  is  impossible,  for  a 
man  of  a  sound  mind  to  present  an  ol)jective  view  of  these 
doctrines  without  being"  somewhat  influenced  by  his  opinion 
of  the  connection  and  development  of  the  vai'ious  beliefs. 
Gradually  as  he  proceeds  in  his  work,  a  desire  for  order  arises 
in  his  mind,  and  out  of  the  perception  of  this  order  arises  a 
certain  directive  power  to  him  in  estimating  beliefs. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  all  sects  of  Christians  can  get  a 
fair  starting-point  for  viewing  the  development  of  doctrine  in 
what  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  the  great  beliefs,  which 
were  preached  to  the  early  Christians.  We  at  the  present 
day  have  a  complete  New  Testament  before  us — we  have  the 
light  of  many  ages  reflected  on  it,  the  most  powerful  minds 
have  helped  to  an  understanding  of  its  contents,  the  most 
powerful  philosophical  intellects  have  endeavoured  to  develope 
and  sj'stematise  its  principles.  We  ought  therefore  to  be  in 
a  much  better  position  in  the  present  day  for  interpreting, 
systematising,  and  developing  the  New  Testament  doctrines 
than  the  early  Christians  were.  Many  of  them  could  not 
read,  most  of  them  had  no  philosophic  powers,  most  of 
them  heard  the  gospel  only  through  the  voice  of  apostles — 
to  the  poor  the  gospel  was  preached.  Many  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  must  have  been  unknown  even  to  those 
who  coidd  read.  In  fact  "  there  was  a  spoken  Christianity 
as  well  as  a  written  Christianity  The  former  existed  before 
the  latter.  It  was  independent,  and  for  the  most  important 
ends  complete  and  sufficient ''."  This  spoken  Christianity, 
this  oral  gospel,  must  have  been  of  such  a  nature  that  it  could 
be  easily  understood  by  the  masses — could  have  been  conveyed 
from  one  man  to  another.  This  oral  gospel  is  our  starting- 
point.  What  was  it  ?  what  were  its  great  truths  ?  They  all 
centered  round  Christ.    The  main  one  was  that  Christ  was 

''  Professor  Godwin  :  p.  73  of  the  Essay  mentioned  afterwards. 


VJ.]  TXTRODUCTIOX.  49 

the  source  of  a  new  spiritual  life.  He  was  the  Sou  of  God, 
the  fulness  of  God  in  human  form.  He  showed  God  to  men. 
His  will  was  one  with  the  Divine  will  :  God^s  power  was  his 
power.  He  came  to  the  world  to  save  men  from  sin,  to  lead 
men  to  God.  He  taug-ht  in  his  lifetime  the  way  of  life — 
to  love  God  and  keep  his  commandments.  He  died  for  men 
that  He  mig-ht  hring  them  to  God,  and  He  rose  again  from 
the  dead,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  received  all 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  from  that  time  was  with 
all  those  who  trusted  Him,  sustaining-  them,  guiding  them, 
and  preparing'  them  for  complete  holiness.  Those  who  thus 
trusted  Christ  would  at  death  go  to  be  with  their  Lord,  would 
afterwards  have  their  bodies  raised  up,  and  would  reign  with 
Him  in  complete  sinlessness.  Those  who  rejected  Him,  on  the 
other  hand,  could  expect  nothing-  but  God^s  wrath.  Such 
would  be  the  main  truths  proclaimed  c. 

The  existence  of  a  preached  Christianity  must  be  ever  kept 
in  mind  while  we  treat  of  the  progress  of  theology.  And 
at  the  same  time  we  have  to  remember  that  the  early 
Christians  preferred  what  they  received  from  living-  witnesses 
to  what  was  contained  in  books.  A  statement  to  this  effect 
is  made  by  Papias,  and  reasons  are  given  for  it  in  Clemens 
Alexandrinus.  What  this  preached  Christianity  was,  how- 
ever, we  should  be  utterly  unable  to  realise,  had  we  not  had 
written  documents  of  the  age.  And  accordingly  it  is  in  the 
apostolic  writings  in  which  we  are  to  seek  for  the  complete 

•^  I  refer  my  readers  once  for  all  to  Professor  Godwin's  admirable  Essay  on 
the  Earliest  Form  of  Christianity,  in  the  Introductory  Lectures  delivered  at 
the  opening  of  the  New  College,  London,  October  18.51  (London  185 1).  Pro- 
fessor Godwin  developes.  at  greater  length  than  I  have  room  for,  the  main 
topics  of  this  preached  Christianity.  He  sums  up  thus  :  "  His  humble  state,  his 
Divine  mission,  the  nature  of  his  miracles,  the  perfection  of  his  character,  the 
spirituality  of  his  kingdom,  his  salvation  from  sin,  his  sacrificial  death,  his 
exaltation  to  supreme  dignity  and  universal  dominioD,  his  constant  presence 
by  his  Spirit  with  his  Church,  his  coming  again  as  the  Judge  of  all  men — 
these  were  subjects  on  which  oi'al  communications  could  be  made,  with  all  the 
correctness  and  completeness  needful  for  an  intelligent  and  cordial  acknow- 
ledgment of  .Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men." — P.  94. 
VOL.  I.  E 


50  INTnODVCTJON.  [Chap. 

exhibition  of  the  earliest  form  of  Christianitj'.  Tliose  writings, 
as  it  appears  to  me,  present  us  with  the  most  astonishing 
moral  phenomenon  that  human  history  exhibits.  The  in- 
tensity of  the  moral  heat,  if  I  may  so  speak,  of  these  writings 
is  something  scarcely  comprehensible  to  us.  All  the  philo- 
sophers before  them  sought  for  some  highest  good.  Even 
when  they  allowed  that  the  highest  good  was  to  be  found  in 
morality,  they,  by  expressing  a  possible  difference,  showed 
tliat  the  idea  of  happiness  was  present  to  their  minds.  In 
the  case  of  the  apostles,  the  idea  of  happiness  and  every  other 
such  notion  pass  entirely  out  of  sight  in  their  anxious  longing 
for  complete  holiness,  for  living,  as  they  called  it,  for  Him 
who  was  the  Life.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  in  Christ's 
salvation  freedom  from  a  fearful  punishment  is  implied ;  yet 
the  apostles  never  once  mention  this  freedom  from  punish- 
ment. The  only  possible  mode  in  which  they  can  conceive 
calamity  coming  upon  them  is  in  the  anger  of  their  heavenly 
Father.  To  be  alienated  from  Him,  to  incur  his  displeasure, 
— all  evils  were  included  within  that.  In  fact  that  was  the 
one  evil.  And  so  when  they  looked  forward  to  a  future  life, 
there  is  not  a  single  expression  of  anticipation  of  mere  earthly 
joy,  not  the  slightest  hint  of  mere  pleasure.  Their  whole 
longing  is  to  be  with  that  Lord  who  had  died  to  wipe  away 
their  sins.     This  is  the  main  feature  of  these  writings. 

In  respect  to  theology  there  is  not  the  slightest  attempt 
to  systematise.  There  is  the  most  absolute  belief  of  certain 
great  truths.  There  is  a  determined,  unwavering  confidence 
in  Christ  as  the  author  and  finisher  of  their  faith.  But  there 
is  not  the  remotest  desire  to  unravel  the  puzzles  which  after- 
wards beset  the  theological  world.  There  is  in  their  childlike 
faith  an  utter  unconsciousness  of  them.  Thus  they  speak  of 
Christ  invariably  as  one  individual  being.  They  knew  He 
was  the  Son  of  God.  Tliey  knew  He  was  real  man.  But  it 
was  the  Son  of  God  that  became  man,  just  as  the  child  and 
the  grown  up  man  are  the  same  being.  How  this  took  place, 
whether  He  had  two  natures  or  wills,  in  what  metaplu'sical 
relation  He  stood  to  the  God  and  Father  of  all — these  and 


VI.]  ixTRonucriox.  51 

many  such  questions  never  occupied  their  minds.  So  again 
in  regard  to  Christ's  death.  They  knew  that  Christ  did  die 
to  take  awa}'  their  sins  and  to  bring-  them  to  God.  They 
knew  that  He  in  his  death  did  conquer  death.  They  knew 
that  He  had  stripped  the  principalities  and  powers  of  the  air 
of  their  dominion;  but  how  his  death  could  effect  such  a 
grand  revolution  in  the  souls  of  men  and  in  the  relations  of 
the  universe  to  man,  this  was  a  question  which  did  not  occupy 
their  minds.  And  indeed  it  might  be  easy  to  show  that  they 
had  a  strong  disinclination  to  any  such  speculations. 

This  unspeculative  character  of  the  apostolic  teaching  the 
modern  Church  has  to  a  considerable  extent  lost  sight  of, 
simply  because  dogmatic  theology  has  now  taken  the  place 
of  practical  in  many  respects.  Still  those  who  have  deeply 
considered  the  subject  have  been  all  but  unanimous.  And 
the  acknowledgment  has  been  made  by  all  parties;  by  the 
thoroughly  evangelical  Count  de  Gasparin^,  by  the  liberal 
Neander,  and  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Mohler.  "  The 
apostles/'  says  the  last  mentioned,  "  related  the  histoiy  of 
the  Lord,  and  with  that  alone  the  whole  contents  of  Chris- 
tianity were  given  e/-"  The  fact  also  was  in  some  measure 
appreciated  by  the  first  man  who  formed  a  theological  system. 
"Now  we  ought  to  know,''  says  Origen,  "that  the  holy 
apostles,  preaching  the  faith  of  Clmst,  stated  in  the  clearest 
language  cei-tain  things  which  they  believed  to  be  necessary, 
to  all,  even  to  those  who  seemed  rather  backward  in  the 
search  after  divine  knowledge,  evidently  leaving  the  reason 
of  the  assertion  of  those  things  to  be  inquired  into  by  those 
who  should  deserve  the  excellent  gifts  of  the  Spirit  ^,"  &c. 

With  regard  to  outward  forms  the  apostles  verged  towards 
indifference.  They  did  not  look  on  baptism  as  of  great  con- 
sequence :  they  came  to  view  the  observance  of  Judaistic  rites 
as  a  matter  of  convenience  and  taste,  and  they  regarded  the 
observance  of  the  eucharist  as  binding  on  them,  because  it  was 

<1  Christianity  in  the  Three  First  Centurie.s,  p.  82. 
e  Litei-aergeschichte,  p.  49.     See  also  p.  50. 

f  De  Princip.  lib.  i.  Prsefat.  c.  iii.  See  Redepenning,  Origenes,  part  i.  p.  393. 

E  2 


52  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

a  memorial  instituted  by  Him  who  was  their  life,  and  the 
object  of  intensest  love.  In  the  administration  of  their  com- 
munities it  seems  to  me  that  there  ruled  one  g-reat  principle, 
VIZ.  that  each  Christian  man  was  a  king  and  a  priest — that 
by  the  indwelling-  of  Christ's  Spirit  within  him  he  had  become 
a  free  man  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word.  The  organisa- 
tion of  churches  under  various  office-bearers  might  proceed  in 
different  ways,  provided  this  principle  were  untouched — and 
in  fact  the  offices  in  the  Church,  if  they  might  be  called 
offices,  were  not  fixed  established  modes  of  government,  but 
wise  methods  of  bringing  every  gift  of  the  Church  into  active 
employment. 

Such  is  a  general  view  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  early 
Christians.  This  mode  of  belief  was  childlike,  and  full  of  trust 
in  God. 

But  gradually,  as  we  advance  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
we  find  greater  precision.  This  precision  is  almost  invariably 
the  result  of  opposition  to  false  notions.  The  fact  is,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  that  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries 
strove  unconsciously  for  the  simple  practical  view  of  the  great 
truths,  but  equally  unconsciously  they  gave  way  to  the  same 
speculative  tendency  to  which  the  heretical  opinions  of  their 
antagonists  owed  their  origin.  As  we  deal  with  the  individual 
writers,  we  shall  have  more  ample  opportunity  to  show 
this.  Here  let  it  be  remarked,  that  the  opinion  that  there 
was  orig-inally  only  a  broad  basis  of  great  truths,  not  too 
closely  defined,  and  conceived  in  a  purely  practical  shape, 
can  alone  harmonise  with  many  of  the  circumstances  which 
will  present  themselves  to  us,  such  as  the  coexistence  of  a 
true  Christianity  with  materialism,  the  frequent  discussions 
of  the  nature  of  Christ,  and  the  rejection  by  some  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit.  And  this  broad  basis  is 
also  the  explanation  of  the  extraordinary  liberality  of  the  early 
Church.  For  I  think  it  will  appear  that  the  Church  received 
all  who  expressed  their  confidence  in  Christ  and  their  willing- 
ness to  obey  Him.  They  might  speculate  as  they  liked.  They 
might  even  believe  Christ  their  great  Leader  to  be  of  merely 


VI.]  INTRODUCTION.  53 

human  orig-in.  But  so  long  as  they  were  willing-  to  follow 
Ilinij  and  keep  in  the  goodly  fellowship  of  Christians,  the 
Church  welcomed  them  g.  And  I  think  it  will  also  appear 
that  the  early  heretics  were  not  expelled  from  the  Church, 
but  that  they  (the  Gnostics  among  them)  first  set  up  certain 
dogmas,  and  would  fain  have  confined  Christianity  to  those 
only  who  believed  these.  They  went  out  from  the  Church 
because  the  Church  was  too  liberal  for  them.  The  Church 
however  gradually  came  to  adopt  the  same  course ;  and  we 
then  find  an  agreement,  not  in  faith  in  Christ,  but  in  belief 
in  certain  dogmas  insisted  on  as  the  essential  characteristic 
of  a  Christian.  More  and  more  were  the  simple  views  of  the 
early  Christians  expanded  into  logical  precise  propositions  by 
means  of  a  philosophy.  These  propositions  have  had  the 
result  of  showing  what  human  reason  can  accomplish  in  the 
explanation  of  divine  mysteries.  They  have  served  the  same 
purpose  as  the  various  schemes  of  metaphysics  in  regard  to 
knowledge.  We  have  become,  or  ought  to  become,  conscious 
of  our  ignorance,  and  therefore  we  ought  to  be  at  once  more 
humble  and  more  charitable. 

•  A  very  remarkable  instance  of  this  is  the  way  in  which  Paul  dealt  with 
those  in  the  Corinthian  Church  who  denied  the  Resurrection.  He  does  not 
once  threaten  expulsion. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

IIISTOMCAL   SUEVEY    OF   THE    MODE   OE   TREATMENT. 

J.  HE  literature  which  in  some  way  or  other  bears  on  the 
doctrines  of  the  early  Cliristians  is  of  enormous  extent.  In 
every  controversy  an  appeal  has  been  made  to  the  works  of 
the  primitive  Christians^  and  there  is  not  a  dogma  in  the 
whole  of  our  theological  creeds  for  the  defence  or  destruction 
of  which  the  Fathers  have  not  been  ransacked.  AVe  can 
therefore  take  only  a  rapid  glance  at  the  prominent  features 
in  the  treatment  of  early  Christian  doctrine. 

We  begin  with  Roman  Catholic  writers.  At  the  time  of 
the  Reformation  the  Romanists  appealed  to  the  Fathers  as 
authorities^  they  paid  respect  to  most  of  them  as  saints,  and 
they  were  inclined  to  place  them  in  positions  of  the  highest 
honour.  Such  a  feeling  led  them  to  bestow  the  utmost  pains 
on  the  proper  editing  and  explanation  of  their  writings ;  and, 
as  we  have  seen,  they  have  been  by  far  the  most  diligent 
cultivators  of  patristic  literature.  The  false  honour  however 
■which  they  paid  to  the  early  Christian  writers  proved  a 
mighty  obstacle  to  the  exact  appreciation  of  their  sentiments 
and  character.  The  Romani^jts  wished  to  see  in  the  Fathers 
the  doctrines  of  their  Church,  and  they  did  see  them.  Not 
only  so,  but  the  great  majorit}-  of  the  Church  deem  it  im- 
possible that  there  can  be  any  real  disagreement  in  doctrine 
between  the   members  of  tlie  Church,  to  whatever  age   they 


CuAP.  Vll.]  ISTRODUCTIOy.  55 

may  belong-.  Consequently  development  is  out  of  the  question, 
and  the  history  of  dog-mas  is  looked  on  as  a  questionable 
attemi)t  ^. 

Those  who  have  ventured  on  the  attempt  have  been  strongly 
biased  by  their  antipathy  to  protestantism.  They  were  far 
more  ea<>er  to  obtain  confirmation  of  the  pope's  authority,  of 
the  priesthood,  of  the  sacramental  efficacy,  and  other  exter- 
nal points  which  were  called  in  question,  than  of  the  Trinity, 
or  the  Atonement.  And  accordingly  several  Romanist  writers 
are  remarkable  for  the  candour  with  which  they  state  the 
defects  of  the  early  writers.  Foremost  among  these  is  the 
Jesuit  Petavius^  whose  work  De  Theolog-icis  Dogmatibus 
{Paris  1 644-50)  b  was  one  of  the  very  first  attempts  at  a 
history  of  dogmas  as  a  whole  ^.  He  candidly  confesses  that  a 
g'reat  number  of  the  early  writers,  especially  Athenag-oras, 
Tatian,  Theophilus,  Tertullian,  and  Lactantius,  believed  "  the 
Son  to  have  been  brought  forth  (productum)  by  the  Supreme 
God  the  Father,  when  he  wished  to  make  the  universe,  that 
he  might  employ  him  as  a  helper."  He  adds,  that  '^some 
others,  like  Origen,  thought  the  Father  superior  to  the  Word 
in  age,  dignity,  and  power;"  and  that  '' they  thought  he  had 
a  beginning  not  less  than  creatures,  that  is,  that  his  personality 
{yii6(TTa(nv)  had  not  been  distinct  from  eternity^."  The  fact 
is  that  Roman  Catholic  writers  are  not  without  a  motive  for 
exhibiting  the  defects  of  the  early  writers.     Maintaining,  as 


»  Neander  states  of  Professor  Hermes  of  Bonn,  that  "  he  scrupled  to  give 
lectures  upon  it."  (Lectures  on  the  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,  by  Dr. 
Augustus  Neander.  Edited  by  Dr.  J.  L.  Jacobi.  Translated  from  the 
German  by  J.  E.  Ryland,  M.A.  Two  vols.  London,  Bohn,  1858,  vol.  i.  p.  ■28.) 
See  also  Baur,  Lehrbuch  der  Christlichen  Dogniengeschichte  :  zweite  Ausgabe, 
pp.  35  and  57,  (Tubingen  1858).  Both  these  works  give  an  historical  account 
of  the  treatment  of  the  history  of  dogma. 

•>  The  first  volume  of  a  republication  of  this  very  learned  work  has  appeared  : 
Dionysii  Petavii  Aurelianensis  e  societate  Jesu,  opus  de  Theologicia  Dogmatibus 
e.xpolitum  et  auctum,  collatis  studiis  Car.  Passaglia  et  Clem.  Schrader,  ex  eadera 
societate.     Tom.  i.   Romae  1857.     Dedicated  to  the  Pope. 

<=  See  Baur:  Lehrbuch  der  Christlichen  Dogniengeschichte,  j).  52. 

»!  De  Trill,  i.  v.  7. 


•V'  IXTRODL'CTIOX.  [Chap. 

Petavius^  did,  that  eouneils  alone  settled  doctrines,  they  re^ifard 
these  aberrations  of  individuals  as  proofs  of  the  uncertainty 
of  individual   opinion.     Many  of  them   moreover  have  held 
to  the  notion  that  the   Fathers  did  not  state  their  opinions 
fully;  that  they  often  concealed  their  true  sentiments  from 
the  public  eye,  and  occasionally  arg-ued  to  suit  circumstances. 
The  f>reat  truths  which  they  Ijclieved,  they  handed  down  by 
tradition;  and  onlv  in  the  Church,   the  living-  possessor  of 
these   traditions,  can    we    have    a    complete   exposition   and 
authoritative  ex])lanation    of  the    sentiments    of    the    great 
teachers  of  Christendom.     In  Xewman^s  Essay  on  Develop- 
ment, the  very  defects  of  the  early  writers  are  dwelt  on   at 
length,   and  made  the  basis  of  an   argument  ^     He  sets  it 
down  as  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  it  was  only  by  degrees 
that  both  the  theolog\'  and  the  practice  of  the  Church  attained 
their  maturity.      And  he  propounds  as  his  theory  that  God 
intended  this  development  to  take  ])lace,  and  that  He  provided 
for  it  by  arranging  that  it  should  take  place  under  the  eye 
<if  Infallibility.     And  he  maintains  that  this  theory  is  more 
feasible  than  any  that  has  been  proposed.      His  words  are : 
"  Some  hypothesis  all  parties,  all    controversialists,  all  his- 
torians, must  adopt,  if  they  would  treat  of  Christianity  at  all. 
Gieseler  s  text-book  bears  the  profession  of  l)eing  a  dry  analysis 
of  Christian  histor}';  3-et  on  inspection  it  will  Ije  found  to 
be  written  on  a   positive  and  definite  theory,  and   to  bend 
facts  to   meet  it.      An   unbeliever,  as   Gibbon,  assumes   one 
hypothesis ;  and  an  idtramontane,  as  Baronius,  adopts  another. 
The  school  of  Hurd  and  Xewton  considers  that  Christianity 
slept  for  centuries  iipon  centuries,  except  among  those  whom 
historians   call    heretics.      Others    speak   as    if  the    oath    of 
supremacy,  as  the  eonge  d' Hire ,  could  be  made  the  measure  of 
St.  Ambrose,  and  they  fit  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  on  the  fervid 
Tertullian.     The  question  is,  which   of  all   these  theoi'ies   is 
the  simplest,  the  most  natural,  most  persuasive.     Certainly 
the  notion   of  development  under  infallible  authority   is  not 

\Z_- __       'See  Prolegomena,  c.  ii.  '  See  especially  pp    12-15- 


YIL]  JNTRODL'CTIOX.  T)? 

a  less  grave,  a  less  winniiio-  hypothesis  than  the  chance  and 
coincidence  of  events,  or  tlie  oriental  philosopli y,  or  tl)e  work- 
ing of  Antichrist,  to  account  for  the  rise  of  Christianity  and 
the  formation  of  its  theolog-y/^  (p.  129.) 

Dulling-er,  in  his  Christenthum  und  Kirehe  in  der  Zeit  der 
Grundleg-ung-  (Regensbiu'O"  i860),  has  g-iven  expression  to 
much  the  same  train  of  thoug'ht.  "The  first  deposit  of  teach- 
ing-,^^  he  says,  "  was  a  living  deposit  which  was  to  grow 
organically,  to  unfold  itself  out  of  its  root  according  to  an  inner 
necessity,  and  at  the  same  time  in  a  manner  corresponding  to 
the  spiritual  wants  of  believers  in  different  times,  and  to  create 
for  itself  the  most  suitable  expression.  It  consisted  more 
of  facts,  principles,  dogmatic  germs  and  hints,  which  bore 
within  themselves  a  constitution  adapted  to,  and  a  capability 
of,  successive  develojiment  and  instructive  cultivation^  in  which 
potentially  lay  shut  up  a  fulness  of  dogmatic  material."  (p. 
162.)  And  so  he  remarks,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity :  "  The  chief  and  fundamental  doctrine,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  which  was  so  strange  and  objectionable  to 
the  Jews  of  that  time,  and  unheard  of  by  the  heathen,  the 
dogma  whose  confirmation  and  development  was  to  occupy 
the  Church  for  many  centuries,  is  never  fully  discussed, 
continually  only  presupposed,  and  scarcely  alluded  to  in 
passings."  (p.  145.) 

Protestantism  took  its  stand  on  the  Scriptures.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  maintained  that  the  Scriptures  were  not 
enough — that,  complete  as  they  might  be  in  themselves,  the 
meaning  of  them  was  a  matter  of  doubt,  and  some  external 
authority  was  required  to  determine  it  with  certainty.  This 
authority  they  said  lay  in  the  Fathers  and  the  Churcli.  It 
was  natural  that  Protestants  in  resisting  this  claim  should 
examine  the  writers  to  whose  opinion  they  were  thus  to  bow 
— not  in  order  to  know  Mhat  they  really  thought,  ))ut  to 
show  how  fallible   and   mistaken    many  of   them  had    been. 

If  See  the  whole  of  his  Second  Book,  section  i,   Schrift  und  Tradition. 


r>S  INTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap, 

The  most  inij)ortant  work  on  this  suljject  that  apijcared  was 
that  of  Daille,  De  Vero  Usu  Patrum  ''. 

Daille  had  studied  the  Christian  writers  most  profoundly; 
he  knew  well  their  merits  and  their  demerits ;  and  with 
skilful  knife  he  laid  open  the  })ut refactions  which  the  Roman 
Catholics  worshi})})edj  and  at  the  same  time  exhibited  the 
beauties  which  Protestants  mi<;-ht  admire.  The  exhibition  of 
the  errors  of  the  Fathers  however  was  the  main  work  of 
Daille  which  the  world  cared  for.  The  Protestant  \\orld  was 
strug-ghng  for  emancijiation,  or  was  afraid  of  a  return  to 
slavery;  and  thus  the  eyes  of  the  most  enlig-htened  Pro- 
testants dwelt  more  willingly  on  the  flaws  in  the  characters  of 
the  men  who  had  been  set  up  as  idol^-',  than  on  the  nobleness 
and  earnestness  which  they  would  willingly  have  seen  in  them 
as  brethren.  We  sympathise  with  them  in  their  feeling-s. 
The  protest  of  Milton  is  a  noble  protest :  "  Whatsoever  time 
or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance  hath  drawn  down  from 
of  old  to  this  present,  in  her  hug-e  Drag-net,  whether  Fish  or 
Sea- weed,  Shells  or  Shrubbs,  unpickt,  unchosen,  those  are 
the  Fathers.  Seeing-  therefore  some  men,  deeply  conversant 
in  Books,  have  had  so  little  care  of  late  to  give  the  World  a 
better  account  of  their  reading  than  by  divulging  needless 
Tractates,  stufft  with  the  specious  names  of  Ignatius  and 
Polycarpus;  with  fragments  of  old  Martyrologies  and  Leg'cnds 
to  distract  and  stagger  the  multitude  of  credulous  Readers,  and 
mislead  them  from  their  strong  guards  and  places  of  safety 
under  the  tuition  of  Holy  Writ,  it  came  into  my  thoughts  to 
persuade  myself,  setting  all  distances  and  nice  respects  aside, 
that  I  could  do  Religion  and  my  Country  no  better  Service 
for  the  time  than  doing  my  utmost  endeavour  to  recall  the 
People  of  God  from  this  vain  foraging  after  Straw,  and  to  re- 
duce them  to  their  firm  Stations  under  the  Standard  of  the 

h  This  treatise  was  published  in  French  in  1631,  translated  into  Latin  by  Mat- 
taire,  and  revised  and  improved  by  the  author,  Geneva  1655.  It  was  translated 
into  English  by  the  Rev.  T.  Smith,  whose  translation  was  re-edited  and 
amended  by  the  Rev.  G.  Jekyll,  LL.B.,  London  1841.  I  have  made  my 
references  to  the  Latin  version. 


VII.]  INTRODUCTION.  ">;> 

Gospel ;  by  making-  appear  to  them  first  the  insufficiency, 
next  the  inconveniencVj  and  histly  the  impiety,  of  these  gay 
Testimonies  tliat  their  g-reat  Doctors  would  bring-  them  to 
dote  on  \" 

There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  learning-  of  Daille  and  the 
protest  of  Milton  were  absolutely  required,  and  the  objections 
which  have  been  taken  to  the  one  or  the  other  are  made  in 
fororetfulness  of  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  It  is  a  dis- 
agreeable  thing',  as  Daille  himself  remarks,  to  drag  before  the 
light  the  failings  and  errors  of  holy  men ;  but  wdien  fallible 
men  like  ourselves  are  exalted  as  gods  over  us,  and  especially 
when  their  failings  have  been  pi'aised  as  virtues,  and  mistake 
is  exhibited  as  infallible  dogma,  the  truth  miist  then  be  set 
forth.  At  the  time  too  of  Daille  and  Milton  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  letters  of  the  Popes,  all  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius,  and  that  too  in  the  longer  form,  and  many  other  such 
documents,  were  paraded  as  genuine.  Daille^s  critical  power 
in  his  De  Usu  Patrum,  and  in  his  other  works,  especially  that 
on  Ignatius  and  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  were  the  principal 
means  of  ridding  the  study  of  early  Christianity  of  many  a 
wearisome  discussion.  In  fact  Daille^s  merits  cannot  be  easily 
over-estimated''.  Those  who  took  up  his  woi'k  cannot  be  praised 
so  highly  :  they  have  scarcely  advanced  a  step.  The  cha))ter 
in  which  Daille  recorded  his  opinion  of  the  merits  of  the 
Fathers  was  unheeded,  and  a  prejudice  was  handed  down 
from  one  generation  to  another  against  all  Christian  wa'iters 
of  antiquity,  and  especially  the  earlier.  So  powerful  has  this 
prejudice  been,  that,  as  far  as  I  know,  the  Evangelical  school 
in  this  country  has  not  produced  one  first-rate  work  on  early 
Christian  literature.  Their  ablest  works  have  been  directed 
against  Romanism  and  Traetarianism,  and  therefore  have  been 
exceedingly  one-sided.  This  fault  attaches  to  two  of  the  most 
remarkable  books  which  made  their  appearance  in  the  course 

>  Of  Prelatical  Episcopacy.  (Milton's  Works,  Amsterdam  1698,  vol.  i. 
p.  239.)  And  read  at  the  same  time  the  noble  passage  beginning  '  And  here- 
withal  I  invoke  the  Immortal  Deity."  (p.  752.) 

k  See  Bunsen's  high  opinion  of  Daillc's  work  on  Ignatiu.s  :  Ignatius  und 
seine  Zeit,  p.  2yj. 


«0  ISTRODUCTJON.  [Chap. 

of  the  lute  Tnielarian  controversy  :  the  Divine  Rule  of  Faith 
and  Practice,  hy  AVilliani  Goode,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridg-e,  (second  edition,  London  1853;)  and 
the  Ancient  Christianity  of  Isaac  Taylor.  Goode  devotes 
a  larg-e  portion  of  his  first  volume  to  show  that  many  of  the 
early  Christian  writers  were  heterodox.  For  instance,  he 
labours  to  show  that  Tatian,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  Hippolytus,  and  even  Justin  ^Martyr,  must  be 
heterodox  on  the  generation  of  the  Word,  whatever  interpre- 
tation of  their  words  be  adopted.  (Vol.  i.  p.  238.)  He  does 
this  with  the  laudable  object  of  proving  how  absurd  it  is  for  a 
man  to  hand  over  his  reason  into  their  keeping.  But  at  the 
same  time  the  book  betrays  carelessness  in  the  study  of  these 
early  writers,  and  unintentionally  does  them  injustice,  by 
assuming  a  certain  standai'd  of  orthodoxy.  The  same  fault 
attaches  also  to  Isaac  Taylor's  contribution  to  the  controvei'sy. 
Ancient  Christianity.  (Third  edition,  London  184 1.)  There 
is  little  notice  taken  of  the  early  Christian  writings.  The 
writer  draws  his  main  arguments  from  the  works  of  those 
who  flourished  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  the  im- 
pression left  on  the  mind  as  to  the  state  of  their  opinions  and 
feelings  is  one-sided  in  the  extreme.  Both  Goode  and  Taylor 
however  caution  their  readers  against  the  incorrect  estimate 
which  might  be  formed  from  the  facts  Avhich  they  are  com- 
pelled to  adduce  to  undermine  the  extravagant  authority 
claimed  for  the  Fathers ;  and,  in  what  seems  to  me  the  best 
reasoned  of  the  productions  that  ajipeared  in  the  Tractarian 
controversy — Anglo-Catholicism  not  Apostolical  (Edinburgh 
1843,  8vo.) — Dr.  W.  L.  Alexander  treats  the  whole  subject 
with  admirable  fairness.  He  utters  the  following  sound  pro- 
test against  an  undervaluing  of  the  early  Christian  writers : 
"It  must  be  admitted,  further,  that  to  the  writings  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  we  stand  indebted  for  much  that  we  vene- 
rate as  useful,  and  indeed  indispensable,  in  Christianity.  There 
has  been  amongst  Protestants  a  great  deal  of  foolish  talking, 
and  much  jesting  that  is  anything  but  convenient  upon  this 
subject.     Men  who  have  never  read  a  page  of  the  Fathers, 


VII.]  IXTIWDUCTIOX.  «I 

and  could  not  read  one  were  they  to  try,  have  deemed  them- 
selves at  liberty  to  speak  in  terms  of  scoffing  and  supercilious 
contempt  of  these  venerable  luminaries  of  the  early  Church. 
Because  Clement  of  Rome  believed  in  the  existence  of  the 
phoenix,  and  because  Justin  Martyr  thought  the  sons  of  God 
who  are  said  in  Genesis  to  have  intermarried  with  the 
daughters  of  men  were  ang-els,  who  for  the  loves  of  earth 
were  willing  to  forego  the  joys  of  heaven ;  and  because  legends 
and  old  wives^  fables  enow  are  found  in  almost  all  the 
Fathers,  it  has  been  deemed  wise  to  reject,  despise,  and 
ridicule  the  whole  body  of  their  writings.  The  least  reflection 
will  suffice  to  show  the  unsoundness  of  such  an  inference. 
What  should  we  say  of  one  who,  because  Lord  Bacon  held 
many  opinions  which  modern  science  has  proved  to  be  false, 
should  treat  the  Novum  Organum  with  contempt?  or  of  one 
who  should  deem  himself  entitled  to  scoff  at  Richard  Baxter, 
because  in  his  Saint's  Rest  that  able  and  excellent  man  tries 
to  prove  the  existence  of  Satau  by  quoting  instances  of  his 
apparitions,  and  of  his  power  over  witches  ?  There  is  no  man, 
however  good  or  great,  that  can  get  quite  beyond  the  errors 
and  credulities  of  his  age.  It  becomes  us  therefore,  in  deal- 
ing with  the  writings  of  a  former  generation,  to  take  care 
that  in  rejecting  the  bad  we  do  not  also  despise  the  good; 
and  especially  that  we  be  not  found  availing  ourselves  of 
advantages  which  have  reached  us  through  the  medium  of 
these  writings,  whilst  we  ignorantly  and  ungratefully  dis- 
honour the  memories  of  those  by  whom  these  writings  were 
penned."     (pp.  70,  71.) 

There  is  however  another  motive,  besides  antipathy  to 
Romanism,  which  has  powerfully  influenced  the  Evangelical 
school  in  their  dislike  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  The 
Evangelical  theology  is  widely  different  from  that  of  the 
earlv  Christian  writers.  Luther^s  theology  was  based  on  the 
study  of  the  works  of  Jerome  and  Augustine  '.  "Among  the 
Fathers   of  the    Christian   Church,"  says    :M'Crie  of  Knox, 

1  Leaders  of  the  Kefurmation,   by  Principal  Tulloch,  pp.  8,  10. 


«2  ISTHODUrTIOX.  [Chap. 

"  Jerome  and  Augustine  altvaeted  his  particular  attention. 
By  the  writings  of  the  former  he  was  led  to  the  Scriiitures  as 
the  only  pure  fountain  of  divine  truth,  and  instructed  in  the 
utility  of  .studying"  them  in  the  original  languages.  In  the 
works  of  the  latter  he  found  religious  .sentiments  very  opposite 
to  those  taught  in  the  Romish  Cliureh,  who,  while  she  re- 
tained his  name  as  a  saint  in  her  calendar,  had  banished  his 
doctrine  as  heretical  from  her  pulpits '"."  Even  up  to  this  day, 
of  all  the  Fathers  Augustine  is  the  favoured  writer  with  the 
Evangelical  school.  But  Augustine  is  widely  diirerent  from 
the  early  writers.  His  theology  is  based  on  a  studious,  though 
often  inaccurate  and  uncritical,  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  and  a  comparison  of  its  various  statements.  Some 
of  the  early  writers  knew  little  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
those  who  had  it  in  their  hands  used  it  rather  to  build  them- 
'selves  up  in  holiness  than  to  satisfy  the  craving  of  the 
intellect  for  definition  and  system.  Moreover  Augustine 
laboured  hard  to  bring  the  doctrines  which  he  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  or  inferred  from  it,  into  logical  consistency 
and  mutual  support.  It  is  this  rationalising  element  in  his 
writings  which  has  attracted  the  Evangelical  school  to  him. 
But  this  element  is  totally  wanting  in  the  earliest  Christian 
writers,  and  ap])ears  in  a  comparatively  mild  form  even  in 
those  of  the  third  century.  Thus  a  distaste  arose  and  still 
exists  for  these  early  writers.  This  distaste  has  been  fostered 
by  two  circumstances.  The  first  is  that  the  early  Christian 
writers  have  been  judged  according  to  the  systematic  theology 
of  the  Evangelical  school.  Their  test  of  orthodoxy  has  been 
applied  to  them,  and  the  test  being  reckoned  as  infallible  or 
uearl}-  so,  they  have  been  found  wanting.  The  distaste  however 
might  have  been  overcome  by  a  more  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  writings  of  the  early  Christians ;  but  unfortunately 
no  attempt  has  been  made  to  make  this  acquaintance,  no  eflfort 
to  enter  into  their  circumstances,  to  feel  their  difficulties,  to 
realise  their  mode  of  thought,  and  to  measure  the  grandeur  of 

'"  Life  of  John  Knox,  p.  9. 


VII.]  INTRODUCTION.  0:5 

their  morality  by  placing-  it  along-side  that  of  the  pagan  writers 
of  the  same  age.  As  a  proof  of  these  assertions,  I  shall  take  as 
a  specimen  of  the  treatment  of  the  early  writers  hy  the  Evan- 
g-elical  scliool,  a  work  called  "The  Theology  of  the  Early 
Christian  Church/^  exhibited  in  quotations  from  the  writers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  with  Reflections,  by  James  Bennet, 
D.J).  (London  1841.)  This  volitme  formed  the  Congregational 
Lecture  for  that  year,  and  may  therefore  be  taken  to  represent 
in  some  measure  the  feeling  of  the  past  generation  of  Con_ 
gregationalists  in  regard  to  the  Fathers.  Dr.  Bennet  often 
blames  the  whole  of  them  for  vag-ueness  and  what  we  now  call 
negative  theology.  Thus  he  says,  "  The  incarnation,  atone- 
ment, and  intercession  of  the  Redeemer  are  not  taught  by  the 
Fathers  in  the  formal  systematic  manner  which  professed  theo- 
logians afterwards  adopted ;  but  the  elements  of  a  system  are 
scattered  with  rude  simplicity  and  perplexing  vagueness  over 
their  works. ""^  (p.  152.)  In  opposition  to  the  reverence  paid  to 
the  Fathers  and  the  authority  ascribed  to  their  opinions,  he 
remai'ks,  "  Their  theology  is  often  so  heterodox,  their  exposi- 
tions of  Scripture  so  absurd  and  contradictory,  and  their 
chastity  so  obscene,  that  he  who  would  dethrone  them  has  but 
to  bring  a  blazing-  torch  into  their  shrines,  and  show  to  the 
crouching  multitude  what  it  is  they  have  adored."  (p.  397.) 
And  in  the  same  spirit  he  contrasts  the  New  Testament 
writings  with  those  of  the  Fathers,  and  remarks,  ^'All  others, 
consulted  as  authorities,  would  taint  a  reader  not  in  his  dotage 
with  infidelity :  such  is  their  ignorance,  their  imbecility, 
their  conceit,  their  false  philosophy,  their  demonology,  their 
Buddhist  asceticism,  their  indecency,  their  prelatical  pride, 
their  contests  for  superiority,  their  self-righteousness,  their 
contradictions  of  each  other  and  of  the  Scriptures  on  which 
they  profess  to  build  their  faith''."  (p.  427.)  There  is  not  a 
single  writer  who  has  left  works  of  any  extent  who  is  not 
accused  of  some  great  heterodoxy.  Thus  of  Justin  he  candidly 
remarks  :  "  He  labours  to  show  that    Christ  was    the  God 

"  See  the  wliole  context. 


fi4  rXTliUDCCTlOy.  [Chap. 

who  a))pcare(.l  to  the  patriarchs,  but  is  so  defective  in  his 
statement  of  the  Trinity,  that  after  the  Council  of  Nice  he 
would  have  been  deemed  an  Arian."  (p.  24.)  Of  Irena?us  he 
remarks  :  "  Irenjeus  himself  has  not  escaped  the  charg-e  of 
heres}' ;  for  he  has  said  many  strang-e  things,  and,  in  a  work 
so  large,  few  g-ood  ones."  (p.  31.)  Ag-ain  he  observes  :  "The 
charge  of  Arianism  and  of  teaching*  the  mortality  of  souls  is 
not  proved  against  Irenieus,  though  he  often  talks  like  a 
Pelag-ian."  (p.  3 1 .)  "Clemens  Alexandrinus,"  he  says,  "scarcely 
mentions  the  atonement,  and  supposes  the  design  of  Christ^s 
becoming  man  was  to  teach  men  to  become  g(jds."  (p.  34.) 
Of  his  morality  he  remarks,  that  it  "  is,  like  that  of  Socinian 
writers,  a  substitute  for  the  merits  of  Christ,  who  is  introduced 
so  rarely  that  he  appears  as  a  strang-cr,  and  so  erroneously 
that  we  are  as  much  surprised  as  delighted  when  we  find  him 
invested  with  the  honours  which  are  his  due/"*  (p.  'T^j.) 

The  same  sentiments  and  animus  are  evident  in  an  article 
in  the  North  British  Review  for  May  1858,  in  Killings 
Ancient  Church,  and  in  Cunninghani^s  Historical  Theolog-y.  A 
much  nobler  appreciation  of  the  character  of  the  early  writers 
is  to  be  found  in  Yaughan's  Causes  of  the  Corruption  of  Chris- 
tianity (p.  322),  and  in  the  sympathetic  volume  of  Stoughton 
On  the  Ages  of  Christendom,  both  Congregational  lectures. 
In  both  however  the  defective  theology  of  the  writers  of  the 
first  three  centuries  is  made  a  matter  of  lamentation.  Yet 
surely  this  suljject  ought  to  engross  the  attention  of  evan- 
g'clical  Christians.  If  the  early  writers  were  heterodox  on 
the  Trinity  ;  if  they  knew  nothing  of  a  satisfaction  of  Divine 
justice,  but  spoke  only  in  a  vagnie  way  of  this  matter  ;  if  they 
wavered  in  regard  to  original  sin,  some  denying-  it  cntirel}' 
and  others  expressing-  themselves  with  g-reat  uncertainty; 
if  their  testimony  to  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament 
is  unsatisfactory  and  inconclusive — where  was  Christianity  in 
those  days?  Did  it  really  sleep  for  three  long  centuries? 
Are  we  to  suppose  that  there  were  Christians  in  those  days, 
but  that  they  never  wrote  books  ?  Or  how  is  the  chasm  to 
be  bridged  ?    Or  may  not  the  Evangelical  school  be  wrong  in 


VII.]  INTRODUCTIOX.  65 

asserting  that  it  is  necessary  for  a  man  to  ]>elieve  in  original 
sin,  the  Trinity,  the  atonement,  and  similar  dogmas  liefore 
he  can  be  a  Christian  ? 

Besides  this,  are  not  those  very  men  who  are  thus  accused 
the  very  evidence  which  we  have  for  the  power  and  truth  of 
Christianity  ?  Was  not  Christ's  power  marvellously  shown 
forth  in  them  ?  And  does  not  he  who  attempts  to  expel  them 
from  the  Christian  Church  aim  a  deadly  blow  at  the  brother- 
hood of  Christ's  Church  ? 

There    is    another   consideration    which    the    Evangelical 
community  should  solemnly  ponder.     Those  men  who  were  so 
defective  in  their  theology,  were  strong  in  faith.     They  loved 
Christ  with  an  intense  love.     As  this  real  faith  grows  colder, 
as  men  begin  to  trust  in  outward  forms,  as  they  get  involved 
in  worldly  governments,  they  also  begin  to  systematise  more 
and  more,  and  to  lay  stress  on  belief  in  their  systems ;  and 
the  theologians  who  please  such  men  as  Dr.  Bennet  lived  in 
an  age  of  innumerable  forms  and  practices  totally  foreign 
to  the  spiritual  Christianity  of  a  Justin,  a  Clemens,  and  an 
Origen.      This  is  a  serious   consideration.      The  advance  of 
speculation  and  system  takes  place  alongside  of  trust  in  other 
things  than  Christ.     Systems  have  their  use ;  but  the  Chris- 
tian Church  has  paid  dearly  for  them.     And  an  earnest  study 
of  the  writings  of  the   devoted  martyrs  and  champions  of 
Christianity  would  be  of  immense  importance  to  the  Evan- 
gelical school,  as  true  brotherly  sympathy  with  them  would 
not  only  increase  that  fervent  zeal  which  God  is  blessing  in 
the  remarkable  revivals  of  our  day,  but  would  lead  them  to 
extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  many  an  earnest  brother 
for  whom  Christ  died,  to  whom  they  now  are  but  too  apt  to 
refuse  the  cup  of  water. 

The  appeal  made  by  the  Roman  Catholics  to  the  Fathers 
had  however  a  different  effect  on  many  Protestants.  They 
examined  the  writings  for  which  authority  was  claimed,  and, 
believing  that  the  early  Christian  sentiments  were  those  of 
Protestantism,  they  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  testimony 
of  the   Fathers   told  against    the    Roman  Catholic    Church. 

VOL.  I.  F 


66  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

Such  is,  in  many  parts,  the  strain  of  Scultetus's  Medulla 
Theolog-ijB  Putrum.  Plis  great  object,  as  he  states  in  the 
title,  is  to  vindicate  the  writing's  of  the  Fathers  from  the 
corruptions  of  Bellarmine.  He  is  animated  by  the  keenest 
bitterness  against  the  Jesuits,  and  in  treating  of  the  Eucharist 
tries  ever}'  device  to  make  the  Christian  writers  speak 
against  Bellarmine  and  the  Universalists  (Ubiquitarii)  °.  The 
same  opposition  to  Romanism  was  the  inducement  to  a  very 
remarkable  work  by  John  Forbes  of  Corse,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  Kings's  College  and  in  the  University  of  Aber- 
deen, and  one  of  the  famous  Aberdeen  doctors.  Baur  has 
placed  Forbes's  work  alongside  that  of  Petavius,  as  the  two 
great  attempts  of  the  seventeenth  century  to  give  a  history  of 
dogmas.  His  book  was  called  "  Instructiones  Historico- 
Thcologicae  de  Doctrina  Christiana  inde  a  tempore  Apo- 
stolorum  ad  sec.  17."  (Amsterdam  1645.)  It  is  also  contained 
in  the  second  volume  of  his  collected  works  (Amsterdam 
1673,  fol.)  He  tells  us,  in  the  address  to  the  reader,  that  the 
Synod  of  Aberdeen  recpaested  him  to  deliver  lectures  to  his 
students  on  the  history  of  doctrines^  because  Romanists  were 
at  that  time  imposing'  on  people,  and  making  them  believe 
that  antiquity  was  entirely  on  the  side  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  polemical  nature  of  the  work  however  is  seen 
only  in  certain  portions  of  it.  He  treats  the  history  of 
doctrine,  like  Petavius,  not  according  to  ages  but  according 
to  subjects.  His  references  to  the  early  writers  are  exceed- 
ingly few,  principally  in  lib.  i.  cap.  iii. ;  and  he  regards  them 
as  entirely  orthodox. 

The  English  Church  especially  claimed  the  Fathers  as  being 
on  its  side.  It  had  done  so  from  the  earliest  times  P.  There 
were  many  reasons  for  this.  It  had  not  made  such  a  complete 
rebound  from  Romanism  as  the  others.  Its  prominent  doc- 
trine of  episcopacy  could  not  be  established  from  the  New 
Testament  alone.  It  had  on  the  whole  little  sympathy  with 
Calvinism ;    and    its  conservative  feeling    was   very   strong. 

"  iSee  especially  liis  remark?  on  .Tustin.  p.  46. 
I"  See  Blunt  on  the  I'pe  of  the  Fathers. 


VII.]  INTRODUCTION.  «7 

While  tliereforc  it  rosistcci  the  pretensions  of  the  pope,  it  did 
not  wish  entirely  to  snap  asunder  the  links  of  history.  It 
claimed  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  as  ag-reeinar 
with  it  in  all  essentials ;  and  again  and  again  in  the  early 
apologies  for  the  English  Church  the  early  Christian  writers 
were  praised  and  appealed  to.  In  the  progress  of  time  the 
Church  of  England  saw  itself  divided  into  various  parties. 
The  Evang'elieal  section  sympathised  in  feeling  with  tlie  sen- 
timents already  attributed  to  them.  Thej?-  were  what  Newman 
calls  the  School  of  Newton  and  Hurd.  But  by  far  the  largest 
and  most  distinguished  portion  of  the  Church  were  great  in 
their  reverence  for  the  early  Fathers,  and  spoke  much  of  the 
value  of  tradition.  ]Many  of  these  laljoured  hard  in  the  study 
of  the  earl}^  Christian  literature ;  and  in  truth  the  English 
Church  furnishes  a  magnificent  list  of  patristic  scliolars 
second  only  to  those  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Their 
names  will  frequently  occur  throughout  these  volumes  i.  In 
opposition  alike  to  other  Protestants  and  to  Roman  Catholics, 
they  especially  took  upon  themselves  to  define  the  exact  use 
of  the  Fathers.  They  believed  Scripture  to  contain  all  that 
was  needful  for  salvation ;  but  they  believed  also  that  the 
writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  were  the  safest  guides  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  "We  allow,^^  says  Water- 
land,  '^  no  doctrine  as  necessary  which  stands  only  on  Fathers, 
or  on  tradition  oral  or  written :  we  admit  none  for  such  but 
what  is  contained  in  Scripture  and  proved  by  Scripture  rigidly 
interpreted.  And  we  know  of  no  way  more  safe  in  necessaries 
to  preserve  the  right  interpretation  than  to  take  the  ancients 

q  Professor  Forbes,  mentioned  above,  should  perhaps  properly  be  reckoned 
along  with  the  English  Churchmen.  He  refused  to  sign  the  Covenant,  and 
was  in  consequence  deprived  of  his  professorship.  Afterwards  he  thought  it 
advisable  to  leave  Scotland.  His  Instructiones  was  printed  at  Amsterdam, 
while  he  was  living  in  exile.  He  dedicated  the  work  to  Charles  the  First. 
In  the  dedicatory  letter  he  points  out  on  the  one  hand  the  error  which  Roman 
Catholics  committed  in  paying  too  great  deference  to  the  Fathers,  and  on  the 
other  he  rebukes  those  who  contemn  them  as  useless,  calling  them  "  inepti 
Scripturee  laudatores." 

F  2 


«8  ISTRODUL'TION.  [Chap. 

along'  with  us  ^"  They  attempted  to  show  that  the  accusations 
broug-ht  atyainst  the  Fathers  did  not  tipply  to  the  early  writers, 
and  how  likely  it  was  that  the  friends,  companions,  and  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles  would  more  fully  comprehend  the 
meaninc;'  of  their  words  than  men  speaking^  a  different  lan- 
g"uag"e,  breathing-  a  totally  ditferent  atmosphere,  and  accustomed 
to  very  difierent  ideas.  These  considerations  are  well  set 
forth  in  the  Essay  by  Waterland  quoted  above,  on  the  Use  and 
Value  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquitv.  The  whole  subject  has 
also  been  ably  discussed  by  a  writer  of  our  own  time,  Professor 
Blunt.  In  the  first  part  of  the  work  called  "The  Rig-ht  Use 
of  the  Early  Fathers  :  two  series  of  Lectures  delivered  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge  hy  the  Rev.  J.  J.  Blunt,  B.D.,  late 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  :''  London  1857,  Blunt  tries 
to  do  away  with  what  he  regards  as  the  misrepresentations  of 
Daille.  He  defines  the  position  of  the  English  Church  in 
reg-ard  to  the  Fathers,  and  he  shows  with  great  success  how 
satisfactory  the  proofs  are  that  they  do  not  sanction  the 
errors  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

The  ideas  of  English  Churchmen  in  regard  to  the  use 
of  the  early  Fathers  were  unfavourable  to  a  fair  study  of 
patristic  theology.  They  set  out  fi'om  a  belief  in  the  certainty 
of  the  doctrines  of  their  own  Church.  They  wished  to  have 
tradition  on  their  side ;  and  they  were  compelled  therefore  on 
all  occasions  to  show  that  tradition  was  on  their  side.  They 
could  not  have  recourse,  like  Roman  Catholics,  to  any  theory 
of  secresy  or  development.  They  did  not  venture,  like  Evan- 
g-elical  Protestants,  to  pronounce  them  heterodox.  The  only 
third  course  remaining  for  them  was  to  explain  away  what 
seemed  inconsistent  with  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. And  from  the  earliest  times  to  this  day  their  whole 
efforts  have  been  directed  to  reconcile  inconsistencies  and  ex- 
plain away  some  of  their  plainest  and  most  positive  statements. 
This   is   seen  in  the  great   controversy   which  raged  within 

'  On  the  Use  and  Value  of  Ecclesiitstical  Antiquity  :  Waterland's  Works, 
vol.  V.  p.  316.     Oxford  182.V 


VII.]  INTRODUCTION.  69 

the  Eno;lish  Church  itself,  and  among-  Arians  and  Soeinians, 
with  rog-ard  to  the  Trinity.  The  most  learned  work  on  the 
suhject,  that  of  Bull,  undertakes  to  show  that  the  writers  of 
the  first  three  centuries  held  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the 
Nicene  Creed.  Bull  starts  with  the  idea  that  the  Nicene 
Creed  is  the  truth,  and  he  evidently  was  of  opinion  that 
whatever  the  early  Fathers  mig'ht  have  said,  they  must  have 
helieved  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  it.  So  he  goes  to  work, 
explaining  away  multitudes  of  passages  which  tell  strongly 
against  his  preconceived  idea,  and  setting  down  as  the 
opinions  of  authors  mere  inferences  of  his  own  from  their 
opinions.  So  much  so  is  this  the  case,  that,  as  Newman  has 
remarked,  out  of  thirty  authors  that  he  has  appealed  to,  he 
has,  for  one  cause  or  another,  to  explain  nearly  twenty  '. 

At  the  same  time  Bull  had  not  so  much  to  twist  as  might 
at  first  sight  be  imagined.  The  three  points  which  he  under- 
takes to  prove  are  the  preexistence  of  Christ,  the  sameness  of 
his  substance  with  that  of  the  Father,  and  the  coeternity  of 
the  Son.  Of  the  first  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  Fathers 
speak  positively  enough.  In  regard  to  the  second  and  third, 
they  did  not  so  much  differ  from  the  Nicene  Creed  as  simply 
neglect,  or  fail  to  see,  the  points  which  afterwards  came  into 
dispute,  and  therefore  their  statements  are  not  so  precise  as 
Bull  would  fain  make  them.  On  another  point,  the  sub- 
ordination of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  in  which  the  Fathers 
are,  according  to  many  Evangelical  divines,  utterly  heterodox. 
Bull  agreed  with  them.  For  he  maintained  that  Christ, 
even  in  respect  to  his  divinity,  was  inferior  to  the  Father — 
that  the  Father  was  the  fountain  and  source  of  the  Son's 
divinity*.      And    in    treating    of  this    subject    he    does    not 

»  See  Newman's  criticism  of  Bull's  work,  in  his  Essay  on  Development, 
pp.  158-9. 

*  "Proinde  [ut]  Pater  divinitatis,  quae  in  FUio  est,  fons,  origo  ac  priucipium 
sit,"  iv.  I.  I.  p.  251.  "  Catholici  doctores,  turn  qui  Synodo  Nicaena  anteriores 
fuere,  turn  qui  postmodum  vixerunt,  unanimi  consensu  Deum  Patrem  etiaui 
secundum  divanitatem  Filio  majorem  esse  statuerunt."  (iv.  2.  i.)  Petavius  the 
Jesuit  denounces  the  Calvinists  as  heretical  on  this  point.  "Ex  iis,"  he  says, 
"  corollarii  id  loco  conficitur  inanem,  immo  vero  impiam  esse  Calvini  et  Ante- 


70  IXTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap. 

adduce*  passag'es  from  tlie  early  writers  to  sliow  that  tliis  was 
their  belief;  but  reg-arding-  this  as  a  settled  point,  he  attempts 
to  show  that  the  most  distiug-uished  Fathers  of  the  Nieeiie 
period  ag-reed  with  the  early  writers. 

It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance  that  BulFs  work  was 
directed  ag^aiust  Petavius,  a  Jesuit,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Sandius,  an  Arian,  on  the  other.  The  honesty  of  Petavius 
was  especially  perplexing'  to  him  and  other  members  of  the 
Church  of  Eng-land,  Indeed  to  some  it  seemed  like  insulting 
the  Fathers  to  deny  their  orthodox3^  This  feeling  is  curiously 
brought  out  in  a  letter  which  AVaterland  has  quoted  in  refer- 
ence to  Petavius.  "The  very  pious  Mr.  Nelson,"  he  says, 
"  in  a  letter  to  a  popish  priest,  has  some  reflections  worth  the 
inserting-  in  this  place.  I  am  not  ignorant  that  two  of  your 
great  champions,  Cardinal  Perron  and  Petavius,  to  raise  the 
authority  oi general  councils  and  to  make  the  rule  of  their  faith 
appear  more  plausilde,  have  aspersed  not  only  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, as  uncai)able,  by  reason  of  their  ohscuritij,  to  prove  the 
great  and  necessary  point  of  our  Saviour's  illv'initij,  but  have 
impeached  also  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  as 
tardy  in  the  same  point.  Blessed  God,  that  men  should  be 
so  fond  of  human  inventions  as  to  sacrifice  to  them  those 
pillars  of  our  faith  which  are  alone  proper  and  able  to  support 
it !  I  mean  Scripture  and  primitive  antiquitjj  "."  The  writer 
adds  that  he  had  heard  Petavius  had  retracted  his  opinion. 

The  same  spirit  which  pervades  BulFs  works  is  seen  in 
AYaterland's  various  writings.  The  early  Fathers  must  at 
all  hazards  be  made  to  agree  with  the  Church  of  ICngland. 
It  is  seen  also  in  Burton^s  two  treatises  :  "  The  Testimonies  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;"  "  To  the 
Trinity.''  And  even  in  Blunt's  work  there  is  an  evident 
determination  to  overlook  every  expression  that  seems  a  dis- 
agreement.    There  is  not  the  slightest  attempt  to  enter  into 

theanorum   iirgutiam   qui  Filium   qua  Deus  est  a  Patre  origiuem  accepisse 
negant,  fatentur  autem  qua  est  Filius^  sive  ratione  habita  personae."     De  Dog. 
lib.  ii.  c.  iii.  6.   Pe  Deo  Deique  proprietatibus. 
"  Waterland's  Work.s,  vol.  v.  p.  2,^7  ufAe. 


VII.]  IN'TRODUCTION.  71 

the  spirit  of  the  Fathers  and  their  modes  of  thinking-.  The 
results  of  modern  criticism  compel  him  to  notice  the  dis- 
crepancies; but  he  makes  no  attempt  to  reconcile  them.  He 
never  dreams  that  what  appears  to  him  inconsistent  and 
even  contradictory  might  be  seen  from  another  point  of  view 
to  be  harmonious.  He  thus  sums  up  their  opinions  on  the 
Trinity  :  "  Now,  in  spite  of  many  unguarded  phrases  which 
from  time  to  time  fall  from  the  Fathers — unguarded,  I  say, 
because  entirely  at  variance  with  their  ordinary"  teaching — it 
is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  ftiith  of  the  sub-apostolic  Church 
was  Trinitarian."  (p.  486.)  Besides,  all  the  writers  of  the  first 
three  centuries  are  appealed  to  as  if  they  all  agreed.  The 
testimony  for  instance  of  Tertullian  is  adduced  as  evidence 
in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  the  time  of  Poly- 
carp. 

Most  of  the  works  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers  produced 
by  Engli.sh  Churchmen  were  controversial.  They  were  di- 
rected principally  against  Arians,  Socinians,  and  disbelievers. 
The  Arian  doctrines  were  often  upheld  within  the  Church 
itself;  and  three  of  the  greatest  Englishmen — Milton,  Locke, 
and  Xewton^ — expressed  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Christ^s 
divinity  different  from  the  common  notions.  "Within  the 
Church,  Dr.  Clarke  especially  was  accused  of  auti-Trinitarian- 
ism  in  his  work  on  the  Trinity.  He  aj^pealed  to  the  earliest 
Fathers;  and  throughout  the  controversies  which  then  raged  y 
the  character  of  the  early  Christian  writers  and  their  avithority 
were  much  canvassed.  The  anti-Trinitarian  writers  were 
generally  inclined  to  rate  the  writers  of  the  second  century 
and  onwards  very  low  :  they  pointed  out  their  numerous  mis- 
takes, and  they  tried  to  show  that  they  corrupted  rather  than 
interpreted  Scripture  doctrine.  This  opinion  was  paraded 
especially  by  the  Unitarians.     Seeing  in  Christ  nothing  but 

*  Newton  occupied  some  of  his  leisure  hours  in  examining  the  real  opinions 
of  Athanasius.     See  Brewster's  Life  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

y  For  an  account  of  these  controversies  and  the  various  writings  then  pro- 
duced, see  the  Life  of  Bishop  Bull  by  Nelson,  and  that  of  Waterland  by  Van 
Mildert,  in  their  collected  works. 


72  IXTRODUCTIOK.  [Chap. 

a  inero  man,  they  could  not  but  feel  tluit  the  Ciiurdi  at  a 
very  early  stage  made  a  »j;Toat  dei)arture  from  the  truth. 
They  therefore  turned  from  the  Church  altogether,  and  ima- 
gined that  the  sect  of  the  Ebionites  ought  to  have  been  the 
Church;  but,  unfortunately,  triumphant  error  had  driven 
them  into  a  corner.  The  true  Church  had  been  suppressed; 
the  great  mass  of  early  Christians  were  not  real  Christians. 
Such  sentiments  prevented  the  holders  of  them  from  taking 
a  living  interest  in  the  development  of  the  Church;  and 
accordingly  most  of  the  Unitarian  works  in  this  country  were 
deficient  in  scholarship.  Priestley,  in  his  History  of  the 
Corruptions  of  Christianity,  modestly  acknowledged  that 
he  took  "a  good  deal  of  pains  to  read,  or  at  least  to  look 
carefully  through,  many  of  the  most  capital  works  of  the 
ancient  Christian  writers  ^.'^  Horsle}'  laid  hold  of  these  words, 
and  endeavoured  to  show  how  ignorant  Priestley  was  of  his 
subject,  Horsley^s  Charge  was  a  complete  and  satisfactory 
refutation  of  Priestley,  though  it  did  not  do  much  more  than 
use  BulFs  work  well.  Several  other  able  replies  to  Priestley 
were  written,  one  of  which  deserves  especial  note  here  as 
being  among  the  very  few  learned  works  written  by  Scots- 
men on  the  early  Christian  writers.  Its  title  is  "  A  Vindica- 
tion of  the  Doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Primitive  Faith 
concerning  the  Deity  of  Christ,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Priestley's 
History  of  Early  Opinions ;  by  John  Jamieson,  D.D.,  Minister 
of  the  Gospel,  Forfar.'^     (Edin.  1794.   2  vols.  8vo.) 

The  controversy  with  the  infidelity  to  which  such  men 
as  Voltaire  and  Gibbon  had  given  ex]iression,  also  evoked 
from  English  Churchmen  the  results  of  their  patristic  studies. 
Most  of  the  works  that  attack  the  deistical  writers  of  this 
countr}"  deal  in  some  measure  with  the  writings  of  the  early 
Christians.  In  Scotland  also  we  have  to  note  Lord  Hailes's 
Rejdy  to  the  famous  Fifteenth  and  Sixteenth  Chapters  of 
Gibbon's  History.  Lord  Hailes  devoted  his  attention  to 
several  portions  of  patristic  study,  editing  and  translating 
various  books  of  Lactantius,  and   publishing  three    volumes 

'  Prefacp,  p.  ixii. 


VII.]  INTRODUCTIOX.  73 

of  Remains  of  Christian  Antiquity,  with  explanatory  notes. 
(Edin.  1776-80.) 

The  work  of  Barbeyrac  on  the  ]\Iorality  of  the  Fathers 
(Traite  de  hi  ^Morale  des  Peres  de  TEg-lise  :  Amsterdam 
1728.  4to),  was  thouji-ht  l)y  many  Eiig-lish  Churchmen  to  be 
directed  against  the  characters  of  the  Fathers.  And  accord- 
ingly Waterland  and  Blunt  hav(!  both  expended  much  energ-y 
in  repelling  his  attacks  on  some  of  their  moral  doctrines. 
But  Barbeyrac  himself  states  that  his  object  was  to  raise  up  a 
new  line  of  arg'ument  ag'ainst  the  infallibility  of  the  Fathers. 
He  does  not  wish  to  depreciate  their  real  merits,  but  he 
laljours  to  show  that  they  erred  on  various  important  points 
of  morality,  and  that  consequently  they  are  not  entitled  to 
that  slavish  reverence  which  Remi  Ceillier  in  particular,  and 
the  Roman  Catholic  party  in  general,  claimed  for  them.  He 
has  often  made  objections  which  further  investig-ation  has 
proved  to  be  baseless;  but  there  ai-e  several  points  in  which 
he  has  shown  that  they  were  wrong,  and  in  which  most 
unbiassed  people  will  allow  that  they  were  wrong'.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  they  should  err ;  but  it  is  wonderful  that 
men  gifted  with  rational  natures  should  maintain  that  they 
could  not  and  never  did  err. 

This  is  the  proper  place  to  notice  two  works  which  fostered 
the  study  of  patristic  literature  in  no  ordinar}"^  degree.  The 
one  was  "  Primitive  Christianity  Revived  :  in  fo\ir  volumes. 
By  William  Whiston,  M. A.  London,  171 1.'"'  A  fifth  volume 
was  published  in  1712,  containing  a  translation  of  the  Recog- 
nitions. Whiston  was  a  man  of  great  simplicity  of  mind, 
and  had  a  most  earnest  desire  for  the  truth.  Unfortunately, 
however,  his  scholarship  was  not  great  ;  and  his  mind, 
probably  through  his  mathematical  training,  had  become 
exceedingly  crotchety.  Accordingly  the  two  great  dis- 
coveries of  his  work  are  mere  outrageous  fancies.  He 
l)elieved  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  to  be  inspired,  and 
he  regarded  the  longer  (jreek  form  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius 
as  genuine. 

Tiif  oth«'r  work  was    Lardiicr's   Credibility    of  the   Gosi)el 


74  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

History,  the  first  part  of  which  made  its  appearance  in  1727. 
Lardner  was  a  man  of  extraordinary  dih^-enee,  ^-reat  candour, 
and  true  Christian  liberality.  His  work,  thouj^h  he  got  little 
reward  for  it,  has  been  of  incalculable  use  to  the  defenders  of 
Christianity,  and  its  contents  have  been  ransacked  a<4ain  and 
again  by  men  who  should  have  gone  to  the  Fathers  them- 
selves. Lardner  prefixes  discussions  on  the  date  and  author- 
ship of  the  writings  which  he  uses  ;  and  he  then  quotes  and 
explains  all  the  passages  which  bear  any  resemblance  to 
passag-es  in  the  New  Testament.  He  has  done  the  work  once 
for  all ;  and  I  have  therefore,  in  my  account  of  the  theology 
of  each  writer,  given  only  those  passages  which  are  un- 
doubtedly taken  from  the  New  Testament,  the  author  being 
named,  or  the  words  being  identical. 

The  revival  of  literature  in  Germany  opened  up  a  new  era 
in  the  study  of  early  Christian  literature.  Mosheim's  works 
on  ecclesiastical  history  contributed  very  materially  to  its 
formation.  For  the  age  in  which  it  appeared,  his  history  was 
remarkable  for  its  fairness  and  the  power  of  combining  scat- 
tered notices  into  a  whole.  Walch  also  treated  the  heretics 
with  characteristic  German  honesty.  But  in  many  respects 
the  movement  was  due  to  those  who  examined  early  Christian 
literature  simply  to  know  what  it  was.  These  inquirers,  who 
were  perAaded  with  the  spirit  of  indifference  then  widely 
prevalent,  were  in  a  position  to  state  fairly  many  points  that 
in  the  keenness  of  polemics  had  been  entirely  overlooked. 
Foremost  among  these  was  Semler,  who  recognised  the  o>reat 
fact  that  each  age  has  its  own  ideas  and  atmosphere  of  thought, 
and  that  doctrines  can  be  ascertained  correctly  only  when 
examined  in  the  light  of  these. ^  INIany  of  his  criticisms  were 
necessarily  rash,  and  seldom  deserve  notice  now ;  but  his 
critical  treatment  of  the  sulyect  ai'oused  thought  and  inquiry. 

»  D.  Baumgarten's  Untei-suchung  Theologischer  Streitigkeiten  ;  erster  Band, 
rait  einigen  Aninerkuiigen,  Yorrede  und  fortgesetzten  Geschichte  der  Christ- 
lichen  Glauhenslehre  herausgegeben  von  D.  .Tohann  Salomo  Semler.  Halle 
I  762.  p  i6.  The  whole  of  the  introduction  of  Semler's  to  his  History  of  Doc- 
trines is  replete  with  modern  thought,  and  well  repays  perusal. 


VII.]  INTRODUCTION.  75 

Many  followed  iu  his  footsteps  ;  and  g-radnally,  as  a  healthier 
and  holier  spirit  came  over  German  theologians,  through  the 
iurtueuce  of  Sehleiermacher  and  men  of  the  same  stamp,  the 
German  mind  was  more  prepared  to  undex'stand  the  history 
of  the  early  Christians.  For,  as  Neander  remarks,  only  a 
Christian  mind  can  properly  understand  the  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity. Neander  himself  is  the  best  type  of  the  living 
Christianity  which  applied  itself  to  the  comprehension  of  its 
earliest  forms.  He  set  out  from  the  principle  that  Christianity 
was  a  life,  and  he  saw  that  at  the  first  it  had  revealed  itself 
only  as  a  life.  He  looked  therefore  upon  dog-ma  as  a  growth 
— a  natural  growth  indeed,  but  still  a  growth.  Both  Roman 
Catholics  and  Protestants  had  for  the  most  part  regarded  the 
creed  of  the  Christian  as  fixed,  and  any  aberration  from  it  had 
been  set  down  as  heterodox.  Now  dogma  was  looked  upon  as 
a  development,  and  possibly  a  healthy  development,  of  Chris- 
tian life.  Neander  could  thus  exhibit  the  real  history  of  these 
times  with  perfect  truthfulness,  and  the  results,  as  seen  in 
his  history,  are  great.  He  had  many  fellow  workers.  Their 
labours  will  help  us  frequently  in  the  shape  of  monographs. 
In  more  recent  times,  a  spirit  of  the  most  thorough  Christianity, 
and  consequently  of  great  liberality,  pervaded  all  the  writings 
of  Baron  Bunsen,  one  of  the  most  profound  investigators  of 
Chris^tian  literature.  There  was  in  him  a  remarkable  union 
of  the  purely  scientific  spii-it  with  the  deepest  love  to  Christ ; 
and  consequently  his  Christianity  and  iNIankind  is  chai'ac- 
terised  at  once  by  fearlessness  of  research,  a  large  sympathy 
with  Christians,  and  hearty  earnest  piety. 

From  Neander  and  Bunsen  we  may  often  differ;  but  the 
principles  that  lie  at  the  basis  of  their  investigations  seem 
to  me  the  only  sure  ones ;  and  when  the  foundations  are 
secure,  the  discussion  of  differences  tends  towards  a  well- 
assured  unity.  Of  the  former  it  may  be  remarked  that  his 
investigations  were  to  some  extent  influenced  by  the  circum- 
stance that  he  ado])ted  the  developed  theology  of  the  Church 
as  iu  the  main  his  own,  and  consequently  he  was  inclined  to 
find  traces  of  a  certain  class  of  speculations  earlier  than  he 


76  INTRODUCTION.  [Chap. 

would  othermse  have  done.  Besides  tin's,  the  form  of  his 
work  often  prevented  him  from  ^oin<^  into  the  reasons  of  his 
opinions ;  and  he  also  felt  himself  compelled  to  pass  over 
many  matters  which  are  of  the  deepest  interest  in  the  history 
of  Christian  literature. 

Bunsen  occupies  in  some  respects  a  more  independent  posi- 
tion. Possessing-  a  liberal  Christian  heart,  he  sympathised 
with  all  phases  of  the  Cluirch^s  history.  But  he  threw  himself 
with  especial  sympathy  into  the  thong-hts  and  feelings  of  the 
early  ages  of  Christendom.  In  almost  all  the  doctrinal  results 
of  his  investigations  I  think  he  is  correct ;  but  he  has  min- 
gled along  with  these  results  a  peculiar  philosophy  of  them 
which  is,  to  say  the  least,  difficult  of  comprehension.  His 
point  of  view  seems  to  me,  if  I  understand  him  aright,  very 
nearly  that  of  the  Alexandrian  Clemens  and  Origen.  Besides 
this,  in  his  great  work,  Christianity  and  ISIankind,  he  has 
chosen  to  build  up  the  history  and  features  of  the  early  ages 
rather  than  give  a  critical  exposition  of  the  process  by  which 
he  obtains  his  results.  It  seems  to  me  questionable  whether 
our  position  in  the  criticism  of  the  earl}-^  writings  is  so  far 
advanced  as  to  permit  a  completely  satisfactory  reconstruction 
of  the  materials. 

There  are  two  remarkable  books  in  English  which  partake 
deeply  of  the  spirit  of  liberal  Christianity  which  we  have 
noticed  in  Xeander  and  Bunsen.  One  of  these  forms  Nos. 
XIX.  and  XX.  of  Small  Books  on  Great  Subjects  :  '•  On 
the  State  of  Man  subsequent  to  the  Promulgation  of  Chris- 
tianity." (London  1851-2.)  These  two  small  volumes  are 
healthy  in  tone,  full  of  the  most  valual)le  material,  and  the 
result  of  vast  reading  and  investigation.  The  other  work  is 
Maurice^s  Lectures  on  the  Ecclesiastical  Histor}^  of  the  First 
and  Second  Centuries.  (1854.)  Maurice  does  not  attempt 
to  examine  the  writers  critically,  but  entering  into  full  sym- 
pathy with  them,  he  exhil)its  their  modes  of  thought  and 
feeling  in  a  masterly  manner.  Like  Bunsen,  he  prefers  to 
construct  rather  than  to  analyse;  and  we  think  that  in  this 
wav   both   have  several   times   allowed  their   imagination  to 


VII]  INTRODUCTION.  77 

carry  them  farther  than  a  just  criticism  can  approve.  A 
remarkable  instance  in  both  is  the  method  in  which  each 
builds  up  the  personality  of  Ignatius  out  of  the  dilFerent 
set  of  letters  which  each  supposes  to  be  genuine.  Maurice^s 
position  is  moreover,  like  Bunsen^';,  more  that  of  the  Alexan- 
drian Clemens  than  of  the  Roman  Clemens.  It  is  essentially 
that  of  a  philosophical  Christianity. 

Of  the  Tubing-en  School  not  much  need  be  said  here. 
Their  expositions  of  the  early  Christian  theology  are  often 
exceedingly  fair.  In  dealing  with  the  Apostles,  however,  they 
are  anxious  to  carry  out  their  notion  of  a  difference  even  to 
doctrine.  But  the  only  great  doctrinal  difference  which  they 
supposed  to  have  existed  between  the  Apostles  disappears 
before  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  passages  alleged.  The 
doctrine  is  that  of  Justification  by  Faith.  Paul  is  supposed  to 
have  preached  a  peculiar  doctrine  on  this  point.  On  all  hands 
this  peculiar  doctrine  is  allowed  to  appear  in  a  very  modified 
manner  in  the  subsequent  ages ;  and  in  the  Epistle  of  James 
some  have  supposed  that  Paul's  doctrine  is  flatly  contradicted. 
The  supposition  of  a  difference  arises  mainly  from  two  cir- 
cumstances :  a  false  meaning  attached  to  StKatco ;  and  a  forget- 
fulness  that  Paul  speaks  principally  of  trust  in  God,  not  in 
Christ.  The  word  bi.Kata)  is  not  used  in  the  New  Testament 
in  its  classical  sense.  We  have  to  fall  back  on  its  etymological 
meaning.  This  meaning  is  either,  to  make  a  person  who  is 
sinful  righteous,  or  to  declare  a  person  righteous  who  is 
righteous.  The  meaning  attributed  to  it  is,  to  treat  a  person 
who  is  guilty  as  if  he  really  were  not  guilty.  Only  the  most 
concurring  evidence  of  unquestionable  examples  of  such  a  use 
of  the  word  would  justify  a  man  in  giving  it  this  meaning. 
And  no  such  examples  can  be  found  within  the  first  three 
centuries  at  least.  Now  Paul's  doctrine  was  this.  He  is  arguing 
against  Judaism.  He  maintains  that  if  a  man's  righteousness 
is  to  depend  on  the  performance  of  the  Law,  then  righteousness 
is  an  impossibility.  No  man  can  do,  or  ever  has  done,  all 
that  he  ought  to  do.  Can  man  then  be  righteous  at  all? 
Unquestionably,  says  Paul.     There  is  a  righteousness  which 


78  INTRODUCTIOX.  [Chap.  VII. 

consi-sts  in  trusting  God.  The  person  may  have  sinned,  but 
his  hope  is  in  God;  and  whatever  he  has  to  do,  the  motive  is 
his  confidence  in  God.  The  case  of  Abraham  was  a  most 
pertinent  example  of  this  righteousness.  How  could  a  man 
obtain  this  righteousness — this  trust  in  God  ?  Unquestionably 
by  faith  in  Chri.st.  Christ  was  the  way  to  God ;  and  he  who 
trusts  Christ  will  certainly  learn  to  trust  God,  and  attain  the 
righteousness,  which  is  not  according  to  man,  but  according 
to  God. 

Now  Jameses  doctrine,  instead  of  being  opposed  to  this,  is 
a  representation  of  the  same  essential  truth,  in  opposition  to  a 
different  error.  Paul  struggled  against  dead  works ;  James 
against  dead  belief.  The  word  Trtorevo)  has  a  double  construc- 
tion and  a  double  meaning:  Trtcrreyco  0ew  (or  et?  0eoV),  'I  trust 
God.^'  Such  trust  is  ever  practical,  is  ever  living;  and  such 
trust,  and  such  alone,  does  Paul  speak  of.  niorewco  tov  Qebv 
itvaL,  'I  believe  that  God  is.^  Here  we  have  mere  belief,  simply 
the  language  of  a  creed.  And  James  refers  exclusively  to 
this  meaning  of  the  word  :  "  Dost  thou  believe  that  there  is 
one  God  ?  Thou  doest  well.  Even  the  demons  believe  and 
tremble.^^  A  mere  consent  to  creeds  is  nothing  apart  from 
deeds.  What  is  the  use  of  believing  that  God  is,  if  you  do 
not  trust  that  God,  if  your  belief  does  not  go  forth  into  a 
practical  confidence  in  God  ?  The  basis  of  true  religion  is  by 
both  apostles  recognised  to  be  a  living  active  faith  in  God, 
Baur  has  indeed  acknowledged  nearly  as  much  as  this;  but, 
notwithstanding,  he  continually  speaks  of  Patd^s  doctrine  of 
Justification  and  Propitiation  as  greatly  modified  in  the  next 
age.  But  such  statement  is  false,  and  would  not  have  been 
made  at  all,  had  not  a  totally  erroneous  opinion  of  Paul's 
doctrine  been  in  his  mind. 


BOOK   I. 


THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHEKS. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

1  HE  name  given  to  the  writers  who  lived  in  the  age 
succeeding  that  of  the  Apostles  is  a  very  objectionable  one. 
Westcott  calls  them  Sub- Apostolic — a  word  which  Blunt  uses 
in  a  wider  sense.  De  Quineey  calls  the  age  subsequent  to 
Christ  the  Epi-Christian ;  and  perhaps  here  we  should  not 
do  wrong  in  calling  the  Apostolical  Fathers  the  Ep-Apostolic 
writers.  Tertullian  calls  the  followers  of  the  Apostles,  Apo- 
stolici  ;*  hence  the  name  Apostolical  Fathers. 

Of  these  wi-iters,  investigation  assures  us  only  of  the  names 
of  three,  Clemens,  Polycarp,  and  Papias.  The  works  which 
are  ranked  beside  the  writings  of  these  have  been  supposed  by 
some  to  belong  to  apostolic  individuals — Barnabas,  Hermas, 
and  Ignatius.  But  a  rigid  examination  of  evidence  shows 
that  there  is  no  satisfactory  ground  for  attributing  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  to  Barnaljas  the  friend  of  Paul,  nor  the  Pastor 
of  Hermas  to  the  Hermas  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  These  two  writings  however  may  reasonably  be 
placed  in  company  with  the  other  Ep-Apostolic  writings, 
as  they  unquestionably  belong  to  the  earliest  Christian  litera- 
ture subsequent  to  the  apostolic.     The  case  is  different  with 

*  De  Came,  c.  ii.      De  Prescript.  Hser.  32. 
VOL.  I.  G 


82  THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.  [Chap. 

the  letters  attributed  to  Ig-iiatius ;  fur,  in  whatever  furm  they 
are  examined,  they  will  be  found  to  contain  opinions  and 
exhibit  modes  of  thoug'ht  entirely  unknown  to  any  of  the 
Ep-Apostolic  writing's.  The  examination  of  these  letters 
must  therefore  be  deferred  until  we  meet  with  similar  opinions 
and  thoughts  in  well  authenticated  writings. 

The  character  of  all  the  Ep-Apostolic  writings  is  marked. 
They  are  simple  informal  utterances  of  pious  faith.  They 
exhibit  no  signs  of  the  application  of  the  intellect  to  the 
distinction  of  doctrines.  They  present  the  great  truths  of 
Christianity  in  a  living-,  active  form.  They  give  us  the  in- 
ternal workings  of  the  Christian  spirit. 

As  yet  Christianity  is  seen  dealing  simply  with  itself.  There 
is  one  slight  and  perhaps  only  an  apparent  exception  to  this. 
In  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  there  are  evident  signs  of  a 
controversy  with  Judaism.  Yet  the  Judaism  brought  before 
us  is  more  that  which  would  suggest  difficulties  to  a  Christian 
reader  of  the  Bible  than  an  actual  outward  living  Judaism 
which  the  writer  wishes  to  bring  over  to  Christianity.  The 
subject  discussed  is  not,  in  fact,  the  relation  of  Christianity 
to  the  Jews  as  non-believers  in  Christ,  but  the  relation  of 
Christianity  to  the  divine  revelations  given  to  the  Jews  in 
the  Old  Testament. 

These  writings  reveal  nothing  of  the  results  of  the  contact 
of  Christianity  with  heathenism.  We  have  in  Clemens  indeed 
occasional  glimpses  of  a  mind  that  had  been  trained  under 
heathen  influences,  and  we  seeah'cady  how  he  naturally  sought 
lor  confirmation  of  his  Christian  opinions  and  practices  in 
what  he  regarded  as  the  noble  men  of  heathenism. 

These  writings  also  show  nothing  of  direct  personal  contact 
with  philosophy,  or  with  the  philosophy  of  Philo  in  particular. 
In  Clemens,  and  still  more  in  Barnal)as,  we  have  allegorical 
interpretation ;  but  this  allegorical  interpretation  they  may 
have  received  in  the  Christian  Church.  There  are  unques- 
tionable instances  of  it  in  the  writings  of  Paul ''.     Moreover, 

•>  Stoughtoii  (Ages  of  Christendom,  ]>.  iii)  remarks  of  allegorical  interpre- 
tation: "It  was  the  injudicious  and  indiscriminate  application  of  a  method 


1]  IXTllODUCTIOX.  83 

this  allegorical  interpretation  bad  been  i>revalent  from  a  very 
early  date  among-  tbe  philosophers  of  Greece.  Anaxagoras 
and  his  friend  ISIetrodorus  of  Lampsacus  systematically 
applied  allegory  to  the  inter])retation  of  tbe  Homeric  poems. 
Plato  condemns  the  explanation  of  mythology  by  virovoiai  or 
hidden  meanings^  (Rep.  ii.  p.  378),  a  proof  that  in  his  time 
this  mode  of  explaining  away  had  already  been  in  vogue.  The 
Stoics  systematically  applied  it  to  the  explanation  of  the 
prevalent  gods.  And  the  same  mode  of  interpretation  had 
long  before  the  Christian  era  been  applied  to  the  Old  Tes- 
ment  by  Aristobulusd.  So  that  before  the  time  of  Philo  a 
barely  literal  interpretation  was  probably  unknown,  and 
Clemens  and  Barnabas  did  but  join  in  a  mode  of  thought 
that  was  universal. 

Very  little  is  said  wath  regard  to  heretics.  Polycarp  alludes 
pointedly  to  one  class,  the  Docetes.  These  men,  growing*  up 
apparently  within  the  Church,  were  not  content  with  the 
simple  faith  of  common  Christians  in  Christ.  They  must 
find  a  place  for  Christianity  within  their  philosophy.  Their 
philosophy,  of  course,  is  not  to  bend.  Christianity  must  bend 
to  it.  Matter,  they  say  to  themselves,  is  an  evil.  The  good 
God  could  not  have  made  it.  The  good  Christ  covild  not 
have  come  in  contact  with  it.  And  so  Christ  was  not  born, 
and  Christ  had  not  a  real  bod}',  nor  did  He  really  die,  nor  did 
He  really  rise  again.  In  one  word,  the  fundamental  facts  of 
Christianity  are  a  lie,  and  faith  in  Christ  a  deception.  Specu- 
lation is  to  be  superior  to  faith,  and  we  are  to  trust  our 
speculative  powers,  and  seek  the  key  of  the  universe,  rather 
than  s\d)mit  like  little  children,  and  attain  to  holiness  through 
Him  who  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life.  No  wonder 
that  Polycarp  spoke  strongly  agninst  such  men,  for  they  laid 
the  axe  to  the  root  of  all  morality ;  they  withered  up  the  love 

which,  within  limits,  is  sanctioned  by  an  inspired  commentator."  So  also  the 
Roman  Catholic  Freppel,  Pferes  Apostoliqnes,  p.  10 1. 

"^  See  Diog.  Laert.  ii.  1 1  ;  Tatian,  Orat.  ad  Graec.  c.  2 1 ,  p  37  ;  and,  for  other 
references,  Wolts  Prolegomena  to  Homer,  p.  i6'2,  p.  97  of  the  second  edition. 

^  See  for  a  full  discussion  of  tliis  point  Gfriirer's  Philo  und  die  Jiidisch- 
alexandrinische  Theosophie,  Abtheilung  ii.  cap.  xv.  p.  71. 

Gl 


S4  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Cuap. 

of  God  in  man's  heart.  Vet  Polycarp  dues  not  seem  to  have 
uttered  his  words  of  denvmeiation  until  every  means  had  been 
used.  Cerdo,  who  is  said  to  be  the  originator  of  Docetism, 
beg-au  his  specadations  within  tlie  Church :  he  taught  liis 
views  secretly  for  some  time.  He  was  warned,  confessed  his 
sin,  and  was  oftener  than  once  received  back  into  the  full 
affection  of  his  Christian  brothers.  In  vain  :  he  could 
not  bear  tlieir  love.  And  Irenai-us  expressly  tells  us  that  he 
withdrew  from  the  assembly  of  Christians.  How  Marciou 
was  treated,  it  is  difficult  to  say ;  for  we  have  no  satisfactory 
accounts  of  him.  The  probability  is  that  he  also  was  brought 
up  within  the  Church ;  that  he  also  confessed  his  sin,  and 
was  received  back  into  the  brotherhood  ;  but  that  at 
last  he  determined  to  set  up  a  new  Christianity  and  a  new 
Church  for  himself.  We  shall  have  to  examine  some  of  these 
points  afterwards. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  these  writings  is  the  deep 
living  piety  which  pervades  them.  This  piety  is  not  of  a 
morbid  character.  It  consists  in  the  warmest  love  to  God, 
the  deepest  interest  in  man,  and  it  exhibits  itself  in  a  healthy 
vigorous  manly  morality.  This  morality  cannot  in  any  way 
be  resolved  into  selfishness.  It  is  an  end  to  itself.  These 
writings  speak  of  no  glorious  heaven  of  delights — they  know 
of  no  joy  but  the  joy  of  holiness.  They  do  not  speak  at  all  of 
heaven,  Ijut  of  a  "i)lace  due  to  man."  They  do  not  urge  to 
moralit}-  by  reward.-^,  but  they  appeal  straight  to  the  heart  of 
man  for  confirmation  of  the  truths  sjjoken,  and  they  direct  to 
God  and  Christ  as  the  furnishers  of  strength  against  the 
temptations  of  life.  This  intense  moral  heat  and  fervour  is 
all  the  more  striking,  that  in  contemporary  writings  and 
writings  shortly  antecedent  the  mind  is  sickened  with  the 
details  of  sin  and  vice  which  were  universally  prevalent. 
The  pages  of  Tacitus,  Juvenal,  Persius,  and  ^Martial  are  full 
of  the  most  fearful  representations  of  vuiiversal  licentiousness 
and  loss  of  all  faith  in  God  and  man  ^.  And  perhaps  a  student 

'  Perhaps  the  condition  of  women  at  this  time  may  be  taken  as  the  best 
index  of  the  general  stAte  of  morals.     This  is   fully   descril>ed  in   .Schmidt's 


L]  IXTRODUCriOX.  80 

could  not  receive  a  more  satisfactoiy  impression  of  the  trutli 
that  God  was  \\'orkin<T"  amonir  the  Christians  in  a  most 
remnrkal)le  maimer,  than  by  turning-  from  the  fetid  pages 
of  stern  Juvenal  or  licentious  Martial  to  the  pure  unselfish 
loving  words  of  Clemens  llomanus,  Polycarp,  or  Hernias. 
The  simple  reading-  of  these  writings  by  themselves  does  not 
strike  us  so  much  now,  because  what  was  living-  new  earnest 
morality  to  them  is  now  familiar  to  us,  and  often  the  very 
words  used  by  them  are  now  used  b}^  men  to  cloak  their 
deceit  and  worldliness.  But  let  us  not  on  this  account  hide 
from  ourselves  the  marvellous  phenomenon  here  presented — 
of  a  morality  that  has  nothing-  to  do  with  selfish  or  worldly 
aims — that  seeks  its  source  in  God,  that  fills  the  whole  being, 
that  goes  out  to  all  men  in  love,  and  that  is  to  itself  a  bound- 
less g-ood.  There  is  apparently  one  exception  to  this  total 
forgetfulness  of  mere  happiness.  Papias  speaks  of  the  worldly 
blessings  of  the  millennium.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  Christians  knew  of  no  heaven  as  a  place  set  ajjart  for 
them.  In  the  apostolic  writing-s  heaven  means  either  the 
sky  or  the  peculiar  dwellingplace  of  God.  And  when  the 
Apostles  speak  of  a  futm'e  state,  they  speak  of  it  simply  as 
"  being  with  the  Lord.'^  Of  course  the  inference  might  be 
drawn,  that  as  the  Lord  was  in  heaven.  Christians  would  be 
there.  But  then  there  is  no  indication  that  the  inference 
was  drawn.  And,  in  fact,  we  shall  see  that  afterwards 
various  opinions  arose  on  the  point,  and  that  most  probably 
the  phrase  "going  to  heaven^'  passed  from  the  Stoic  philo- 
sophy into  Christian  phraseolog-y.  "VMienever  then  Christians 
would  attempt  to  assign  a  place  to  the  blessed,  that  place 
would  most  likely  be  the  earth  beautified,  renewed,  and  made 
glorious — and  if  the  words  of  Papias  be  carefully  examined, 
they  cannot  mean  more  than  this.  He  does  not  exj)ress  one 
word  of  pleasure  at  the  thought  of  a  sensuous  enjoyment,  and 

Geschichte  der  Denk-  und  Glaubeiisfi-eilieit  im  ersten  .Jahrhundert  derKaiser- 
herrschaft  und  des  Christenthums,  p.  266  fF ;  and  in  Friedlaender's  Darstel- 
lungen  aus  der  Sittengeschichte  Roms  in  der  Zeit  von  August  bis  zuui 
AuKgang  der  Antonine,  erster  Theil,  p.  263  fiF. 


86  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

after  all  he  simply  records  the  words  of  Christ,  without  giving 
us  the  interpretation  which  he  })ut  upon  them.  And  in  these 
words  it  deserves  notice  that  the  idea  of  holiness  is  so  per- 
meating-, that  the  trees  are  said  to  desire  the  blessing  of  the 
Lord. 

In  examining  the  Ep-Apostolic  writings  for  the  sake  of  their 
doctrines  we  have  to  bring  them  out  of  a  living  practical  form 
into  an  intellectual  lifeless  shape.  The  doctrines  thus  brought 
out  are  found  to  be  the  same  in  the  main  as  those  of  the  New 
Testament.  Nowhere  is  Christ  directly  called  God  in  them. 
Nowhere  is  a  relief  from  punishment  spoken  of  as  the  result 
of  his  life  or  death.  His  work  from  beginning  to  end  is  a 
purely  moral  work.  There  is  no  curious  prying-  into  the 
peculiar  nature  of  Christ^s  death.  The  Sj^irit  is  mentioned 
without  precision.  The  great  facts  relating  to  man's  sin  and 
salvation  are  introduced  in  a  broad  indefinite  real  manner. 
No  curious  questions  are  discussed.  And  the  final  state  of 
man  is  set  forth  in  ]ilain  undefined  easily  understood  lan- 
g'uage.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  are  often 
referred  to.  The  books  of  the  New  are  never  spoken  of  as 
inspired,  and  never  mentioned  as  authorities  in  matters  of 
belief. 

Some  indeed  have  tried  to  show  that  there  exist  great  dif- 
ferences between  the  beliefs  of  the  Apostles  and  those  of  the 
Apostolical  Fathers.  They  suppose  that  a  degeneracy  is  clearly 
traceable  in  the  latter,  and  that  dogmatic  theology  made  an 
"  immense  retrograde  movement  in  their  hands  f."  The  forms 
of  the  beliefs  are  often  the  same,  but  they  "  reproduce  them 
without  entering  into  their  inner  senses."  How  false  these 
opinions  are,  we  leave  the  reader  to  judge  from  the  accounts 
of  their  theology  which  we  present. 

f  Eeuss  on  Clemens  :  Theolog.  Chret.  vol.  ii.  p.  327. 

K  Pressens^,    Histoire  des  Trois  Premiers  Sifecles  de    TEglise  Chr^tienne, 
vol.  ii.  p.  371. 


I.]  INTKODUCTIOX.  87 

Literature. 

The  wiiting-s  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers  have  been  frequently 
collected.  The  first  separate  collection  of  them  is  that  of 
Cotclerius  (Paris  11572.  II.  fol.),  which  was  reprinted  and 
edited  with  additions  by  Joannes  Clericus^  Antwerp  1698. 
The  second  edition  of  Clericus's  edition  of  Cotelerius  is  the 
most  valuable.  It  was  published  at  Amsterdam  in  1724.  It 
contains  the  works  of  Barnabas,  Clemens,  Hennas,  Ignatius, 
and  Polyearp,  real  and  spurious,  mth  many  prefaces,  notes, 
and  dissertations,  some  of  g-reat  length,  such  as  Pearson's 
Defence  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles. 

The  next  collection  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers  was  by  L. 
Thomas  Ittigius,  who  prefixed  a  dissertation  on  the  writers  who 
flourished  immediately  after  the  Apostles  (Lips.  1699,  8vo). 
Collections  were  also  edited  by  Rich.  Russel  (Lond.  1746, 
II.  8vo),  Frey  (Basil  1742,  8vo),  Hornemann  (Havniae  1828, 
II.  8vo),  Reithmayr  (Munich  1844,  i2mo),  Grenfell  (Rugby 
1844),  and  ]Muralto  (Turici  1847),  none  of  which  are  of 
great  value.  The  modern  collections  which  the  student  will 
find  of  great  importance  are, — 

1.  S.  Clementis  Romani,  S.  Ignatii,  S.  Polycarpi  Patrum 
Apostolicorum  quae  supersunt.  Accedunt  S.  Ig-natii  et  S. 
Polycarpi  Martyria  ad  fidem  codicum  recensuit,  adnotatio- 
nibus  variorum  et  suis  illustravit,  indicibus  instruxit  Guilelmus 
Jacobson,  A.M.,  editio  tertia  denuo  recognita.  (Oxon.  1847.) 
This  work  contains  a  most  valuable  selection  of  notes.  His 
recension  of  Clemens  Romanus  is  the  latest  and  best.  He  has 
short  prolegomena,  consisting  of  notes  to  Jerome^s  notices 
of  the  writers.  He  also  gives  a  very  full  list  of  the  editions 
and  translations.  He  does  not  give  the  Pastor  of  Hermas, 
and  only  the  shorter  Greek  form  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius. 

2.  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Opera,  textum  ex  editionibus  prae- 
stantissimis  repetitum  I'ccognovit,  annotationibus  illustravit, 
versionem  Latinam  emendatiorem,  prolegomena  et  indices 
addidit  Carolus  Josephus  Hefele,  SS.  Theolog.  Doct.  ejus- 
demque  in  Acad.  Tubing.  Prof.  P.O.    (Tubingse  :  editio  tertia. 


88  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.       [Chap. 

1847 'i;  eclitio  quarta  1855.)  Hefele's  notes  are  judicious  and 
valuable.  His  prolegomena  are  clear,  and  contain  an  admirable 
summary  of  the  main  points  discussed  by  previous  writers. 
He  occasionally  trusts  too  much  to  the  learning-  of  others. 

3.  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Opera.  Textum  ad  fidem  Codi- 
cuni  at  Graecorum  et  Latinorum,  ineditorum  copia  insigniunij 
adhibitis  praestantissimis  editionibus,  recensuit  atque  emen- 
davit,  notis  illustravit,  versione  Latina  passim  correcta  pro- 
legomenis,  indicibus  instruxit  Albcrtus  Rud.  Max.  Dressel. 
Accedit  Hermse  Pastor  ex  fragmentis  Grsecis  Lipsiensibus, 
instituta  quaestione  de  vero  ejus  textus  fonte,  auctore  Con- 
stantino Tischendorf.  (Lipsiee  1857;  editio  altera  1863.) 
Dressel  does  not  stand  high  as  contributing  to  the  illustration 
of  his  writers,  nor  are  his  prolegomena  so  clear  and  well 
reasoned  as  they  might  be.  Scholars  are  immensely  indebted 
to  him  however  for  the  unedited  manusci"ipts  which  he  has 
brought  to  light,  and  many  uncollated  ones  which  he  has 
examined.  His  work  is  the  most  complete  collection  of  the 
genuine  Ep-Apostolic  works.  The  edition  of  Clericus  is  the 
onl}^  one  that  contains  almost  all  the  spurious  ones. 

Besides  these  editions  which  throw  light  on  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  mention  is  to  be  made  here  of  sev^eral  important 
works  which  have  appeared  lately  in  Germany  on  the  state  of 
the  Church  and  of  doctrine  as  exhibited  in  these  writings. 
The  most  important  are, — 

1.  Rothe  :  Die  Anfange  der  Christlichen  Kirche  und  ihrer 
Verfassung.  Ein  geschichtlicher  Versuch  von  Richard  Rothe. 
(Wittenb.  1837.)  Baur^s  work  on  the  Ursprung  des  Episcopats 
is  a  reply  to  Rothe. 

2.  Schweg-ler  :  Das  Xachapostolische  Zeitalter  in  den  Haupt- 
momenten  seiner  Entwicklung,  von  Dr.  Albert  Schwegler. 
(Tubingen  1846.  2  vols.) 

3.  Ritsehl :  Die  Entstehung  der  alt-Catholischen  Kirche; 
eine  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtliche  Monographic.  (Bonn 
1850.     Zweite  Auflage  1857.) 

4.  Thiersch  :  Die  Kirche  im  Apostolischen  Zeitalter. 
(Frankfurt  und  Erlangen  1850.     Zweite  Auflage  1858.) 

*•  I  have  used  the  third  edition  in  this  work. 


I.]  INTRODUCTIOX.  8i* 

5.  Lecliler  :  Das  Apostoli.sehe  und  das  Nachapostolische 
Zoitalter  dargestellt  von  Gotthard  Victor  Lecliler.  Zweite 
Aufloge  :  Stuttgart  1857.  The  first  edition  appeared  at 
Haarlem  1851.) 

6.  Reuss  :  Histoire  de  la  Theologie  Chretienne  au  Siecle 
Apostolique.      (Strasburg-,  2d  ed.  2  vols,  i860.) 

7.  Hilg-enfeld  :  Apostolisehe  Yater.      1853. 

8.  Lang-e  :  Das  Apostolisehe  Zeitalter  dargestellt  von  Dr. 
J.  P.  Lange.      (Braunschweig  1854.) 

9.  A  popular  description  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers,  their 
writings,  and  the  circumstances  in  the  midst  of  which  they 
lived  and  wrote,  is  given  in  "  Les  Peres  Apostoliques  et  leur 
Epoque.  Par  M.  FAhhe  Freppel,  Professeur  a  la  Faculte 
de  Theologie  de  Paris.  Cours  d^'eloquence  sacree  fait  a  la 
Sorbonne  pendant  Tannee  1857-8.  (2d  ed.  8vo.  Paris  1859.) 
It  is  strong-lv  Roman  Catholic. 

Thei*e  are  also  three  important  works  on  the  moral  teaching 
of  the  Apostolical  Fathers. 

1.  Francisci  Jaui  Jacobi  iVlberti  Junius,  Lugduno-Batavi 
Commentatio  de  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Doctrina  Morali. 
(Lugduui  Batavorum  1833.) 

2.  Jani  van  Gilse  Zaandamo-Hollandi  Commentatio  de 
Patrum  Apostolicorum  Doctrina  Morali.  (Lugduni  Bata- 
vorum 1833.) 

3.  Stephani  Petri  Heyns,  ex  Promontorio  Bonae  Spei, 
Commentatio  de  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Doctrina  Morali. 
(Lugduni  Batavorum  1833.)  These  three  works  were  prize 
essays.  Besides  these  there  are  various  separate  writings  of 
Bunsen,  Baur,  and  others,  which  -n-ill  be  mentioned  at  the 
proper  time. 

There  is  one  work  in  English  which  treats  of  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,  but  by  no  means  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  It  is, 
"  A  History  of  the  Rise  and  Early  Progress  of  Christianity, 
by  Samuel  Hinds,  D.D."  (Third  edition,  1854.)  This 
work  lias  no  claims  to  be  regarded  as  an  original  production, 
at  least  as  far  as  the  Apostolical  Fathers  are  concerned.  The 
author  is  indebted  principally  to  Cave  and  Bingham,  and 
many  of  his  statements  are  erroneous  and  inaccurate. 


CHAPTER    II, 


CLEMENS  ROMANUS. 


1  HE  first  document  which  comes  under  our  notice  is  a  letter 
addressed  by  the  Roman  Church  to  the  Corinthian.  The 
name  of  the  composer  of  the  letter  is  not  attached  to  it ; 
but  we  know  what  it  is  most  important  to  know,  when 
we  are  assured  that  the  sentiments  expressed  in  it  are  the 
sentiments  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  composition  of  the 
letter  was  unanimously  attributed  by  the  ancients  to  Clemens 
Romanus. 

Li/e. 

Clemens,  called  Romanus  to  distinguish  him  from  Clemens 
of  Alexandria,  was  an  overseer  in  the  Church  in  Rome.  At 
what  period  he  occupied  this  position  is  matter  of  dispute. 
The  earliest  witness  on  this  point  is  Heg-esippus.  His  testi- 
mony admits  of  a  double  interpretation.  Eusebius  ^  remarks  : 
"  And  that  the  divisions  among-  the  Corinthians  took  place 
in  the  time  of  the  person  mentioned  (xara  tov  brjXovixevov) , 
Heg-esippus  is  a  trustworthy  witness.^'  If  we  supply  to 
h]\ovfjL€vov,  TOV  K\i]iJi€VTa,  as  Lardner'',  Lipsius'^,  Dressel^i,  and 
others  have  done,  we  g-et  the  statement  that  Clemens  was 
contemporary  with  the  Corinthian  disputes.  If  we  supply 
Xpovov,  as  Mohler  ^  and  Contogones  ^  have  done,  and  as  the 

•  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  i6.  ^  Credibility,  part  ii.  ch.  ii. 

"^  De  Clementis  Homani  Epistola  ad  Corinthios  priore  Disquisitio,  p.  156. 
"^  Patres  Apostolici,  Prolegg.  p.  xv.  '  Patrologie,  p.  58. 

'  Vol.  i.  p.  19. 


Chap.  IT.]  CLEMEXS  ROMAXUS.  01 

iisa^'e  of  Eusebius"  seems  to  nie  to  require,  then  (he  testimony 
of  Heg-esippus  is  to  the  efiect  that  the  divisions  of  the 
Corinthian  Church  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Domitian.  The 
hitter  interpretation  makes  Hegesipijus  say  nothing"  with 
regard  to  Clemens.  Nor  have  we  an}^  express  testimony  that 
Hegesippus  mentioned  Clemens.  Hegesippus  remained  for 
some  time  at  Corinth,  and  seems  to  have  instituted  particular 
inquiries  into  the  divisions  that  had  taken  place  there.  We 
know  also  that  in  his  work  he  mentioned  the  letter  sent  by 
the  Roman  Chm-cli  to  the  Corinthian h  ;  and  the  words  in 
which  Eusebius  announces  this  ''  after  some  things  said  by 
him  with  regard  to  the  letter  of  Clemens/^  would  incline  us 
to  believe  that  he  did  mention  Clemens ;  but  the  description 
of  the  letter  may  possibly  have  been  Eusebius^s  own.  We 
therefore  get  from  Hegesippus  no  statement  with  regard  to 
Clemens :  but  we  learn  from  him  that  the  circumstances 
which  called  forth  the  Roman  letter  took  place  in  the  reign 
of  Domitian.  On  this  information  we  shall  be  warranted 
in  believing  that  Clemens  flourished  at  that  time,  if  we 
get  satisfactory  testimony  to  his  authorship  of  the  epistle. 
The  first  witness  to  this  is  Dionysius,  an  overseer  of  the 
Corinthian  Church,  whose  words  will  be  adduced  hereafter. 
We  notice  here  simply  that  the  testimonies  of  Hegesippus 
and  Dionysius  conjoined  give  Clemens  as  living  in  the  time 
of  Domitian . 

INIost  of  the  other  writers  who  mention  Clemens  supply 
us  mth  information  only  in  regard  to  the  place  he  held  in 
the  line  of  the  overseers  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  most 
important  is  Irenaus.  His  words  are  :  "  The  blessed  Apostles 
Peter  and  Paul,  having  founded  and  built  up  the  Church, 
gave  the  office  of  oversight  to  Linus.  This  Linus  Paul  has 
mentioned  in  his  letters  to  Timothy.  He  is  succeeded  by 
Anencletus.     Alter  him,  in  the  third  place  from  the  Apostles, 

8  In  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  it,  iii.  28  and  iii.  29,  the  XP^""^  is  expressed  ;  in  ii.  6, 
iii.  18,  and  iii.  32,  either  xpSvos  or  the  name  of  the  reigning  emperor  is  to  be 
supplied.     The  passages  might  be  indefinitely  increased. 

*i  Eu.seb.  Eccl.  Hist.  iv.  22, 


92  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATlIEliS.  [Chap. 

Clemens  ul»t:nns  the  (A'evsi^ht,  who  also  saw  the  Apostles 
themselves  and  conversed  with  them,  and  who  still  had  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles  ring-infr-  in  his  ears,  and  their 
doctrine  before  his  eyes  K"  The  minute  accuracy  of  these 
statements  is  open  to  question.  Everything-  must  depend 
on  the  critical  fiiculty  of  Irenajus,  which  unfortunately 
was  not  g-reat.  The  assertion  that  Paul  and  Peter  founded 
the  Roman  Church  and  built  it  up  is  exceedingly  questional)le. 
For  that  Paul  did  not  found  it,  we  know  from  his  Epistle 
to  the  Romans;  and  that  Peter  had  very  little  connection 
with  it,  is  also  matter  of  certainty ;  and  indeed  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  he  had  no  connection  with  it  at  all.  Besides 
this,  there  is  extreme  iinlikelihood  that  there  was  only  one 
overseer  in  the  Roman  Church  at  a  time,  as  the  statement  of 
Irenseus  seems  to  imply.  The  Corinthian  Church  had  more 
than  one :  most  of  the  churches  of  which  we  know  anything 
had  more  than  one ;  and  we  may  therefore  rest  assured  that 
the  Roman  Church  had  also  more  than  one.  In  addition  to 
this,  we  see  a  perverting  influence  at  work  in  the  minds  of 
Irena?us  and  his  contemporaries,  in  their  strong  wish  to  be 
able  to  trace  up  their  doctrines  to  the  da3"s  of  the  Apostles. 
How  powerfully  this  motive  acted,  alongside  of  the  inactivity 
of  true  historical  criticism,  on  the  minds  of  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus  and  Origeu,  will  become  evident  in  various  parts 
of  this  work.  In  this  case  Clemens  Alexandrinus  ^  speaks  of 
Clemens  as  an  apostle ;  and  Origen  calls  him  a  disciple  of 
the  Apostles  1,  and  ideutiiies  him  with  the  person  mentioned 
in  Philippians  iv.  3  "\ 

The  most  precise  information  which  we  have  is  in  Eusebius. 
He  quotes  Irenaeus,  and  elsewhere  gives  the  same  succession 
as  he  gave,  stating  that  Clemens  succeeded  Ajiencletus  in  the 
twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,  93  a.d.",  and  died  in 
the  third  year  of  the   reign  of  Trajan,  101  a.d.°     On  what 

'  Irenseus,  Haeres.  iii.  c.  3  ;  also  in  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  6. 

•*  Clemens  Alexandr.  Strom,  iv.  c.  17.  '  Origen,  De  Princip.  lib.  ii.  c.  3. 

m  Origen  in  Joann.  torn.  vi.  c.  36.  "  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  15. 

°  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  34.  In  the  Armenian  version  of  the  Chronicon  the 
date  of  his  oversight  is  given  as  the  seventh  year  of  Domitian's  reign.  Jerome's 
version  agi'ees  with  the  Ecclesiastical  History. 


II.]  CLEMENS   ROM  ANUS.  93 

authority  Eusebius  assig-ned  these  dates  we  do  not  know, 
hut  we  can  have  little  doubt  that  he  was  tolerably  careful ; 
audj  on  the  whole^  this  is  the  most  satisfactory  information 
we  can  now  obtain  on  the  subject  ". 

The  tradition  with  regard  to  the  position  of  Clemens  in 
the  line  of  succession  from  the  Apostles  was  by  no  means 
uniform.  Eusebius  had  access  only  to  the  Greek  form  of  it 
given  in  Irenaeus.  Tertullian  seems  to  have  regarded  Cle- 
mens as  the  immediate  successor  of  Peter.  In  attacking  the 
churches  of  the  heretics,  he  challenges  them  to  exhibit  "  the 
order  of  their  overseers  so  running  down  by  succession  from  the 
beginning,  that  the  first  overseer  had  some  one  as  his  ordainer 
and  predecessor  who  was  either  an  Apostle  or  an  apostolic  man 
that  had  lived  with  the  Apostles.  For  this  is  the  way  in  which 
the  apostolic  Churches  hand  down  their  rolls,  as  the  Church 
of  the  Smyrneans  relates  that  Polycarp  was  placed  by  John, 
and  the  Church  of  the  Romans  that  Clemens  was  ordained  by 
Peter q.^^  The  inference  from  these  words,  that  Tertullian 
regarded  Clemens  as  the  first  overseer  of  the  Roman  Church, 
is  not  absolutely  certain.  For  his  argument  would  be  sound, 
and  perhaps  stronger,  if  Clemens  were  only  the  third  from 
the  Apostles ;  for  then  the  Roman  Church  could  exhibit,  not 
merely  one,  but  several  apostolic  men  in  its  roll.  But  still  it 
has  been  universally  taken  to  indicate  that  Tertullian  believed 
Clemens  to  be  the  first,  and  at  least  the  immense  probability 
is  that  such  was  his  belief.  And  Jerome  expressly  states 
that  most  of  the  Latins  represented  Clemens  as  the  successor 
of  Peter.  Schliemann  supposes  that  this  belief  owed  its 
origin  to  the  Clementines,  which  introduce  Clemens  as  the 
disciple  of  Peters.  And  he  thinks  he  finds  a  passage  in 
Origen  confirmatory  of  this  idea.  For  Origen,  in  quoting 
from  the  Recognitions,  describes  the  writer  as  "  Clemens  the 

P  The  conjectures  of  Pearson  and  Doilwell  on  tin's  and  otlier  chronological 
points  are  discussed  in  Tillemont  and  Lardner.  They  do  not  deserve  record 
here. 

1  Tertull.  De  Pracscriptione  Hieret.  c   xxxii. 

'  Die  Clcinentinen  von  Adolph  Schliemann,  p.  1 20. 


94  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  [Chap. 

Roman,  a  discii)le  of  the  Apostle  Peter*/'  But  the  testi- 
mony of  Origen  does  not  help  us  much  here.  For  Origen 
merely  asserts  that  Clemens  was  a  disciple,  which  he  mif^ht 
have  been  even  had  he  been  third  in  the  succession.  And 
it  is  to  me  extremely  doubtful  whether  we  can  with  security 
assig-n  the  description  of  Clemens  in  the  Philocalia  to  Orig-en. 
For  nothing-  is  more  common  than  for  an  ancient  editor  to 
interpolate  explanatory  remarks — an  instance  of  which  oc- 
curs in  chapter  xxii.  of  this  same  Philocalia  in  relation 
to  the  same  Clemens.  He  is  there  called  "  a  bishop  of 
Rome ;"  a  mode  of  expression  entirely  unknown  to  the  time 
of  Orig-en ^  There  is  not  however  the  slightest  doubt  that 
the  Clementine  stories  were  adopted  by  later  writers  as 
historical",  and  from  the  preface  of  Rufiuus  to  the  Recog'- 
nitions^  we  gather  that  many  based  the  belief  in  Clemens's 
immediate  succession  of  Peter  on  the  letter  of  Clemens  to 
the  Apostle  James.     Tillemont  has  observed  this  ^. 

The  fact  probably  was,  that  none  of  them  knew  anything- 
about  the  matter.  Writers  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Eusebius 
indulged  in  endless  conjectures  and  opinions,  some  placing 
him  first,  some  second,  some  fourth,  and  some  trying  to 
reconcile  these  various  opinions.  Of  the  attempts  at  recon- 
ciliation two  may  be  noticed,  more  as  characteristic  of  the 
mode  in  which  these  later  writers  dealt  with  such  matters, 
than  as  likely  to  throw  lig-ht  on  our  investigation.  Rufinus, 
in  his  preface  to  the  Clementine  Recognitions,  tries  to  solve 
the  difficulty  by  supposing  that  Linns  and  Aneneletus  were 
overseers  of  the  Roman  Church  while  Peter  was  alive,  and 
after  Peter's  death  it  fell  to  the  lot  of  Clemens  to  become 
overseer.  This  supposition  has  no  testimony  to  support  it, 
and  probably  Rufiuus  did  not  feel  the  need  of  its  being  thus 

»  Philocal.  Spencer,  p.  8i.  c.  xxiii.     Lommatzsch,  p.  226. 

'  Philocal.  p.  202.     Lomniatzsch. 

"'  See  Schliemann,  p.  1 18-124. 

^  Recognitione.s  ed.  Gersdorf,  p.  2. 

>  Tome  i.  part  i.  p.  484. 


II.]  CLEMENS  JiOJfAAUS.  V5 

supported.  In  one  respect  it  seems  to  us  to  hit  tlie  truth. 
It  frees  Peter  entii-ely  from  the  oversig-ht.  It  is  not  likely 
that  either  Peter  or  Paul  was  an  overseer  in  any  church. 
Tlie  other  explanation  is  that  of  Ejiijihanius.  It  is  only  one 
of  his  conjectures  on  the  subject.  He  supposes  that  Clemens 
received  the  appointment  of  overseer  from  St.  Peter^  l)ut  that 
he  did  not  fill  his  office  as  lon<^  as  Linus  and  Cletus  were 
alive.  This  conjecture  is  based  solely  on  the  words  of 
Clemens  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  These  words 
are  an  exhortation  to  a  person  filled  with  love  to  say,  "  If  on 
account  of  me  there  are  division,  strife,  and  schisms,  I  g'o 
out  of  the  way,  I  retire^." 

There  is  one  point  in  the  statements  wnth  regard  to 
Clemens  which  has  attracted  considerable  attention.  Is 
he  the  person  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ? 
Now,  as  far  as  historical  evidence  g-oes,  we  must  without 
hesitation  affirm  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  his  identity. 
The  first  mention  of  it  occurs  in  Origen^,  whose  authority 
in  such  a  matter  is  null.  The  identity  of  name  would  be 
enoug-h  for  him  to  warrant  him  in  pronouncing-  an  identity 
of  persons.  After  his  time  writers  are  unanimous  in  repre- 
senting- him  as  the  person,  and  Eusebius  oftener  than  once 
thus  speaks  of  him^.  At  the  same  time  the  objections  which 
have  been  nrg-ed  against  the  supposition  (for  it  cannot  be 
called  a  tradition,)  are  utterly  weak.  That  the  Clemens 
mentioned  was  a  Philippian  is  probable  enough,  but  there  is 
no  reason  why  a  Philippian  should  not  find  his  way  to  Rome 
and  hold  a  high  position  in  the  Roman  Church.  Nor  is 
there  anything  in  the  letter  of  the  Roman  Church  incon- 
sistent with  the  writer  of  it  being  a  disciple  of  Paul.  In  fact 
the  letter  informs  us  thus  much,  that  the  writer  knew  at  least 
some  of  the  writings  of  Paul.     So  far  as  this  point  then  is 

'•  Haeres,  xxvii.  §.  6.  Pan.  lib.  i.  Tilleniont  gives  a  full  account  of  the 
various  attempts  at  Bolution,  including  even  that  of  the  Protestant  Hammond  : 
tome  second,  prem.  part.  p.  484. 

*  Comment,  in  Joann.  torn.  vi.  c.  ^f).     Lomniatzsch . 

"  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  u. 


1(6  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

conetTiit'd,  the  want  of  positive  historical  evidence  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  perfect  cong-ruity  of  the  supposition  on  the 
other,  leave  the  matter  undecided.  This  determination  of  the 
question  does  not  prevent  lis  from  g-ivint,^  full  credence  to 
the  statement  of  Irena^us,  that  lie  had  heard  the  Apostles — 
a  statement  most  likely  in  itself,  in  harmony  with  the  most 
proLable  dates,  and  connected  with  tlie  whole  character  of 
the  letter.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  shadow  of  real 
evidence  for  believing'  him  to  l)e  in  any  especial  way  a 
scholar  of  Peter.  The  statements  of  the  Clementines  are 
unworthy  of  credit. 

Of  the  death  of  Clemens  nothing  is  known.  Later  writers 
represented  him  as  a  martyr,  and  there  exists  a  worthless 
document c  describing  his  martyrdom.  But  from  the  state- 
ment of  Eusebius^i  [avaXv^L  tov  (Sioi;),  we  learn  that  that 
historian  had  heard  nothing  of  it,  and  indeed  the  time  at 
which  he  died  would  render  any  such  statement  questionable 
in  the  extreme. 

Some  have  attempted  to  gather  information  with  regard 
to  Clemens  from  the  Letter;  as  it  appears  to  us,  unsuccess- 
fully. Tillemont  and  a  host  after  him  have  inferred,  from 
such  statements  as  "our  father  Abraham,''^  and  the  \vriter's 
acquaintance  with  and  admiration  of  Je\\"ish  men  and  man- 
ners, that  he  was  a  Jew.  But  whatever  the  writer  may 
liave  been,  such  words  as  "  our  fathers'^  are  applicable  not  to 
him,  but  to  the  Roman  Church,  and  would  in  fact  prove  that 
the  Roman  Church  was  Jewish.  And  again,  a  writer's 
acquaintance  with  Jewish  customs  and  admiration  of  the 
patriarch  Jacob  may  proceed  from  other  causes  than  the 
habits  of  thought  peculiar  to  a  liorn  Jew. 

More  recent  writers  have  inclined  to  the  opinion  that 
he  was  a  Roman  ^.  The  supposed  indications  of  this  are  of 
a  more  interesting  nature,  and  at  first  sight  seem  to  have 
some  weight.  It  is  attempted  to  prove  that  the  writer  was 
well  acquainted  with  Greek  and  Latin  literature,  and  that  in 

'  In  Coteleriua,  torn.  i.  pp.  804-81  i.  "*  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  .U- 

*  Lips.  Disq.  p.  155. 


11.]  CLEMESS   ROMA  X  US.  97 

his  reception  of  Christianity  ho  soug-ht  to  bring  some  of  the 
beliefs  which  he  had  imliihed  in  the  course  of  his  education 
into  harmony  with  it.     Thus  he  is  represented  as  looking-  on 
the  Danaids  and  Dirce,  not  as  mere  fictions,  or  appendages 
of  false  divinities,  hut  as  martyrs'',  and  as  placing  the  writings 
of  the  Sil)yl  alongside  of  the  writings  of  the  Apostles.     His 
acquaintance  with  Greek  and  Latin  literature  is  supposed  to 
be  shown  in  the  use  he  makes  of  the  fable  of  the  phaniixe, 
in  the  opinion  stated,  that  there  existed  worlds  beyond  the 
ocean f,   and  in  some  rather  indefinite  historical  allusions  to 
the  history  of  the  Romans,  or,  more  correctly,  of  the  nations?. 
If  he    really    did    the    two   first   things  here  noticed,   we 
certainly  should  be  inclined  to  look  on  them  as  strong  proofs 
of  his  heathen  origin.     But  we  do  not  think  there  is  good 
reason  for  believing  that  he  did  so.     The  words  "  Danaids 
and  Dirce"  have   up   to   recent  times  been  universally  dis- 
carded   as    either    interpolations     or    corruptions,    and    the 
arguments   are  so  strong  for  this  view  that  it  is  wonderful 
any  one  could  for  a  moment  resist  them.     After  mentioning 
the  afflictions  to  which  holy  men  were  exposed  on  account  of 
jealousy,  the  letter  adds  :    "  On  account  of  envy,  w^omen,  the 
Danaids  and  Dircea,  being  persecuted,  having  suffered  terrible 
and  unholy  torments,  reached  the  sure  course  of  faith,  and 
the  w^eak  in  body  received  a  noble  reward,^^     Is  it  possible 
that  a  Chi-istian  writer   who  must  have   personally  known 
many   noble    women   who   fell   victims    to    the  fury  of  the 
heathen,  would  omit  all  notice  of  them,  and  mention  specifi- 
cally only  two  names,  and  those  tw^o  names  which  he  could 
have  heard  only  amid  the   ribald  tales  of  licentious   gods  ? 
Nay  more,  taking  the   words  in  the  most  inoffensive   way 
in  which  they  can  be  taken,  namely,  as  a  comparison ;  so  far 
are  they  from   proving  the   writer  to  have  been  acquainted 
with  Greek  literature,  that  they  must  be  regarded  as  signs 
of  utter  ignorance ;  for  it  would  require  more  than  ingenuity 


''  Hilgenfeld  :  Apostolische  Vater,  p.  56.     Lips.  Disq.  p.  151. 
•  c.  25.  '  c.  20.  *  c.  55. 

VOL.  1.  H 


9H  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FA  Til E RS.         [Cu ap. 

to  elevate  women  that  had  killed  their  husbands,  and  a 
woman  that  had  tormented  another,  into  heroic  martyrs  li. 

The  statement  with  regard  to  the  Sihyl  is  more  feasible, 
but  the  passage  on  which  it  is  based  is  not  found  in  the 
manuscript.  It  occurs  in  a  writing  falsely  attributed  to 
Justin  Martyr";  and  as  in  later  times  many  letters  and 
writings  were  attributed  to  Clemens,  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining  whether  it  is  taken  from  the  genuine  or  some 
of  the  spurious  letters.  The  opinion  that  the  Sibyl  was 
inspired  was  not  uncommon  at  a  very  early  age;  but  we 
must  have  more  proof  before  we  can  allow  that  the  Roman 
Church  held  it. 

The  three  other  passages  do  not  deserve  much  notice,  as 
they  prove  nothing  at  all  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  Cle- 
mens, and  are,  as  it  appears  to  us,  rather  unfavourable  than 
otherwise  to  the  notion  that  the  writer  was  well  educated. 
That  he  could  write  and  read  we  can  have  no  doubt,  as  he 
would  not  have  been  chosen  to  compose  the  letter  if  he  could 
not ;  and  that  he  also  had  some  sense  of  beauty  of  style,  we 
think  evident  from  the  letter  itself.  But  the  opinion  with 
regard  to  the  phoenix  seems  to  us  unquestiouably  indicative 
of  a  rather  credulous  and  uncultivated  mind.  Commentators 
have  generally  appealed  to  Herodotus,  and  more  especially 
to  Tacitus  and  Pliuy,  as  acquiescing  in  the  common  belief; 
but  on  a  close  examination  of  what  these  writers  say,  a  vast 
dilference  will  be  seen  to  exist  between  them  and  Clemens. 
Herodotus'^  relates  simply  the  reports  of  others,  and  does 
not  intimate  that  he  believed  any  part  of  them,  but  positively 
declares  that  some  of  the  statements  were  not  credible. 
Pliny  states  expressly  that  he  does  not  know  whether  the 
accounts  of  the  bird  are  fabulous  or  not'.  And  Tacitus'", 
without  denying  the  existence  of  the  bird,  equalh'  plainly 

^  An  admirable  emendation  of  the  passage  has  been  proposed  by  Words- 
worth and  approved  by  Bunsen.  He  would  read  veavihes,  watSlaKcu.  See 
Jacobson's  note  on  the  passage. 

'  Qusestt.  et  Reapp.  ad  Orthodoxos,  Respons.  74. 

*  Herod,  ii.  73.  '  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  x.  2.  ™  Tacitus,  Ann.  vi.  28. 


II.]  CL£MEXS   ROMAN  US.  M 

declares  tliat  the  statements  with  reo-ard  to  it  are  uncertain 
(h£ec  iucerta  et  fabulosis  aucta).  Now  on  the  other  hand 
Clemens  accepts  the  whole  story  as  true  in  its  most  ridiculous 
minutiae. 

What  indications  the  letter  gives  of  the  time  at  which  the 
writer  lived,  will  be  more  appropriately  di>^cussed  when  we 
inquire  into  its  date. 

There  are  several  sources  of  information  in  regard  to  Cle- 
mens of  which  we  have  taken  almost  no  notice.  These  are 
the  Clementine  Recognitions,  the  Homilies,  and  the  Con- 
stitutions. The  reason  is,  that  we  helicA^e  them  to  be  purely 
fictitious  as  far  as  Clemens  is  concerned — a  proposition  which 
we  shall  attempt  to  prove  when  we  come  to  treat  of  them. 


WRITINGS    OF    CLEMENS. 

I.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIAKS. 

This  ej^istle  has  come  down  to  us  only  in  one  niaimscript. 
It  was  discovered  in  1628  appended  to  the  famous  Alex- 
andrian codex  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Along  with 
it  was  another  writing  with  no  inscription,  but  named  in  the 

catalogue  prefixed  to  the  codex, evTos  e A»j  B, 

which  it  is  easy  to  interpret  "  The  Second  Epistle  of 
Clemens." 

We  have  now  to  inquire  into  the  authorship  of  the  first 
epistle.  We  have  seen  already  that  we  have  no  authority 
for  ranking  Hegesippus  among  the  witnesses  in  this  matter. 
Even  if  we  take  the  words  of  Eusebius  as  Lipsius  has  done, 
the  amount  of  information  we  receive  is,  that  the  disturbances 
among  the  Corinthians  took  place  in  the  time  of  Clemens". 

°  Pearson,  in  his  Yindicije  Igu.  pars  i.  c.  iii.  quotes  a  passage  from  Anasta- 
sius  Bibliothecarius,  in  which  that  writer  affirms  that  Hegesippus  asserted  that 
the  whole  Church  received  the  Letter  of  Clemens  as  genuine.  Pearson  clearly 
shows  that  Anastasius  had  no  authority  for  his  statement,  and  it  arose  entirely 
from  a  misinterpretation  of  Georgius  Syncellus. 

11    2 


100  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Irenacus,  who  says 
that  "  in  the  time  of  this  Clemens  (e77t  tovtov  tov  KA7;/u€v- 
Tos)  no  small  dissension  arising'  among"  the  brethren  at 
Corinth,  the  Chuieh  in  Rome  sent  a  most  satisfactory 
letter  to  the  Corinthians"."  The  first  ascription  of  the  epistle 
to  Clemens  is  in  a  letter  of  Dionysius,  overseer  of  the 
Corinthian  Church,  addressed  to  the  Roman  Chnrch  and 
Soter  its  overseer :  "  We  passed  this  Lord^s  holy  day,"  he 
says,  "in  which  we  read  your  letter,"  (i.e.  the  letter  of  the 
Roman  Church  recently  sent  to  the  Corinthian  Church,) 
"  from  the  constant  reading  of  which  we  shall  be  able  to 
draw  admonition  even  as  from  the  reading  of  the  former  one 
you  sent  us  written  through  Clemens  P."  This  statement  of 
Dionysius  carries  great  weight;  for  it  must  be  regarded 
as  the  opinion  of  the  two  principal  parties  whose  ancestors 
were  concerned  in  the  matter.  Yet  the  distance  of  Dio- 
nysius from  Clemens  prevents  us  from  being  certain  ;  and 
it  is  not  impossible  that  the  ascription  of  the  letter  to 
Clemens  arose  simply  from  the  circumstance  that  he  was  at 
the  time  the  most  prominent  overseer  of  the  Roman  Church. 
We  need  not  quote  further  testimony  with  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Epistle,  as  subsequent  writers  are  unani- 
mous in  ascribing  it  to  Clemens :  Clemens  Alexandrinus*!, 
Origen,  and  Eusebius  all  speak  of  Clemens  as  the  un- 
questionable author.  We  have  not  adduced  a  passage  in 
the  Pastor  of  Hermas  wliieli  mentions  Clemens,  because  it 
really  gives  us  no  information  with  regard  to  him  or  the 
letter,  and  we  shall  have  to  discuss  it  hereafter  in  another 
connection. 

The  next  question  that  has  to  be  considered  is,  Is 
the  letter  which  we  now  have,  the  letter  spoken  of  by 
Irenseus  and  others  ?  A  few  have  attempted  to  deny  its 
genuineness,  especially  in  early  times;  but  their  objections 
were    utterly  frivolous,    the    allusion    to    the    phoenix    being 

•  Adv.  Hser.  lib.  iii.  c.  3,  n.  3.  i'  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  23. 

">  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  c.  7,  p.  339 ;  iv.  c.  17,  p.  609,  610  ;  v.  c.  1  2,  p.  693  ; 
vi.  c.  8,  p.  773.     Origen  and  Eusebius  have  been  already  quoted. 


II.]  CLEMEXS   RO^fANUS.  101 

especially  repugnant  to  their  idea  of  Clemens.  One  writer, 
Bevnarclus  ( Anonym  us  in  Cotelerius),  maintained  that  the 
letter  which  has  come  down  to  us  was  a  forgery,  and  a 
mere  expansion  of  a  few  chapters  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus. 
This  theory  was  based  on  the  circumstance  that  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  has  summarised  many  of  the  chapters  of  the 
Roman  Clemens,  omitting  allusions  to  some  chapters  alto- 
gether, and  condensing  others  within  small  compass.  The 
notion  of  Bernardus  however  is  so  outrageous,  while  the 
summarising  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  so  in  harmony 
with  his  usual  practice,  that  this  theory  has  been  universally 
rejected  in  the  present  day. 

Some  of  the  Tiibingen  school,  especially  Schwegler,  have 
attempted  to  throw  discredit  on  the  authorship  of  Clemens, 
and  to  remove  the  date  of  its  composition  to  a  later  period. 
The  data  on  which  the  attempt  is  based  are  so  arbitrary,  and 
so  intimately  connected  with  the  whole  Baurian  scheme,  that 
they  do  not  require  refutation  here.  Baur  himself  allowed 
that  there  was  nothing  in  the  letter  to  warrant  our  refusing 
to  look  on  Clemens  as  its  author;  but  he  adds  this  astounding 
reason  for  being  uncertain  :  "  The  point  cannot  be  regarded 
as  absolutely  settled,  since  so  many  other  writings  were 
ascribed  to  the  same  Clemens  wdth  the  greatest  injustice, 
and  his  name  especially  became  the  bearer  of  so  many  old 
traditions  and  w^ritings  relating  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church  ^."  Because  many  wTitings  which  were  not  genuine 
were  ascribed  to  Clemens,  or  rather  bore  his  name,  this  one 
also  is  likely  not  to  be  genuine,  though  antiquity  was  unani- 
mous in  regarding  the  one  epistle  as  genuine,  and  in  early 
times  equally  unanimous  in  rejecting  the  other  as  forged.  Baur 
has  since  expressed  his  general  agreement  with  Schwegler  s. 

"■  Ursprung  des  Episcopats,  p.  69. 

■  The  notions  of  Schwegler  are  refuted  in  a  very  sensible  and  satisfactory 
though  not  exhaustive  work  :  Disquisitio  Critica  et  Historica  de  dementis 
Komani  Priore  ad  Corinthios  Epistola,  by  Ecco  Ekker  (Trajecti  ad  Kheniun, 
1854)  ;  also  by  Ritschl,  p.  274  ff;  and  Lechler,  p.  476,  n.  2.  The  evidence  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  letter  is  exhibited  in  a  clear  and  conclusive  manner  by 
Conrad  Thbnissen  :  Zwei  historisch-theologische  Abhandlungen.     I.  Ueber  die 


102  THE   APO,'STOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

Have  we  tlie  whole  of  tlie  letter  ?  To  this  seeoiid  question 
we  ean  give  a  positive  reply.  We  have  not  the  whole  of  the 
letter.  Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  manuscript  there  is  a 
break,  and  Junius  thought  that  a  whole  leaf  was  wanting. 
We  have  no  means  of  supplying  this  defect.  Various  pas- 
sages qnoted  as  from  Clemens  hy  ancient  writers  have  been 
assigned  a  place  here ;  but  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining 
whether  these  passages  were  taken  from  this  letter  or  from 
the  spurious  writings  of  Clemens. 

Is  the  letter  in  any  way  corrupted  by  changes  or  interpo- 
lations? This  question  is  open  to  greater  doubt.  At  the 
first  glance  the  letter  seems  longer  than  one  would  expect  in 
such  circumstances,  and  there  is  more  of  full  delineation  and 
less  of  practical  home-speaking  than  the  circumstances  might 
be  supposed  to  require.  Such  objections  however  are  of  no 
weight.  They  may  leave  a  general  hesitancy  about  the 
question,  but  as  yet  no  attempt  to  impugn  any  one  passage 
has  been  successful. 

Of  these  attempts  a  few  deserve  notice.  Immediately  on  the 
publication  of  the  letter,  Hieronymus  Bignonius  (in  supremo 
Senatu  Parisiensi  Advocatus  Regius)  wrote  to  Hugo  Grotius 
to  ask  his  opinion  with  regard  to  its  genuineness.  He 
himself  found  difhculties  in  the  writer's  use  of  epithets  and 
his  tendency  to  amplification,  in  the  argument  for  the 
resurrection  drawn  from  the  phccnix,  in  the  mention  of 
offerings  and  the  use  of  the  word  Aat/co's  in  ch.  xl.,  and  in 
the  epithet  apxaiav  applied  to  the  Corinthian  Church.  He 
supposed  moreover  that  some  clauses  had  been  added  by 
transcribers.  Hugo  Grotius  replied  to  these  objections  and 
satisfied  Bignonius  entirely,  except  with  regard  to  the  phoe- 
nix*. This  (an  scarcely  be  called  an  attack  on  the  integrity 
of  the  text. 

The  ecclesiastical  historian  ^losheim"  attacked  it  mainly 
on  the  ground  that  the  chapters  did  not   cohere  well.     Fol- 

Authentizitat  und  Integritat  des  ersten   I'Jritfes  des  Clemen  von  Rom  an  die 
C'orinther.     (Trier  1841.) 

'  Coteler.  Patres  Apost.  vol  i.  p.  133.        "  Tnstit.  Hist.  C'lir.  Majorcs,  p.  214. 


11.]  CLEMENS    ROMAN  US.  103 

lowing-  what  he  regarded  as  the  design  of  the  writer,  he 
retained  some  chapters  and  excluded  others.  The  hest 
answer  to  such  a  mode  of  treatment  is,  that  letters  are  not 
often  very  systematic,  and  that  no  one  can  judge  before- 
hand what  a  writer  may  introduce  into  his  letters.  Tliere 
is  another  answer  to  part  of  his  division,  that  some  of  the 
excluded  portions  are  quoted  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus. 

In  more  recent  times  Neander  has  expressed  his  doubts 
with  regai'd  to  the  integi-ity  of  the  letter.  He  takes  par- 
ticular exception  to  the  fortieth  and  forty-first  chapters,  be- 
cause, as  he  says,  "  we  find  the  whole  system  of  the  Jewish 
priesthood  transferred  to  the  Christian  Church".^'  This 
objection  falls  entirely  to  the  ground  when  the  true  nature 
of  the  passage  is  ascertained.  For  there  cannot  be  a  doubt 
that  Clemens  did  not  transfer  the  system  of  the  Jewish 
priesthood  to  the  Christian  Church.  He  merely  refers  to  it 
as  an  instance  of  God^s  orderly  arrangements  in  his  dealings 
with  his  people,  and  he  leaves  the  application  of  the  par- 
ticulars of  the  Jewish  system  entirely  to  the  yz-oio-t?  of  each 
individual.  The  chapter  commences  :  ''  Since  these  things 
then  are  manifest  to  us,  even  examining  into  the  depths  of 
the  divine  knowledge,  we  ought  to  do  all  things  orderly 
which  the  Lord  has  commanded  us,^'  &c.  How  Clemens 
himself  explained  the  meaning  of  the  Jewish  worship  and 
the  Jewish  priesthood  for  Christians  he  does  not  say,  and 
though,  as  we  shall  notice  hereafter,  explanations  have  been 
hazarded  with  regard  to  some  parts  of  his  statements,  yet 
there  are  others  that  have  not  been  grappled  with,  and,  as 
far  as  I  can  see,  do  not  admit  of  a  satisfactory  solution. 
Thus  he  affirms  that  sacrifices  are  not  offered  everywhere, 
but  only  in  Jerusalem ;  and  not  in  every  part  of  Jerusalem, 
but  only  at  the  altar  in  front  of  the  shrine  {vaov) ;  a  statement 
which  he  leaves  entirely  unexplained  in  its  reference  to  the 
Corinthians.     There  can  be  no  doubt  then  that  we  have  here 

"  Neander's  Church  History  (Bohn's  Translation),  vol.  ii.  p.  408.  Mo.sheim 
had  rested  his  doubts  with  regard  to  this  passage  on  the  same  grounds.  (Instit. 
Major,  saec.  i.  p.  214.) 


10+  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

an  instance  of  the  application  of  Christian  yvGiais  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament ;  for  the  writer  expressly 
says  so  in  introducing  and  in  finishing-  the  suhject ;  and  this 
is  now  the  o])inion  of  the  more  recent  commentators  as  it  was 
of  some  ancient  y.  At  the  same  time  the  earliness  of  such 
gnostic  interpretation  and  the  utter  uselessness  of  the  pas- 
sage in  its  unexplained  state  certainly  render  the  chapters 
suspicious.  Besides  this,  there  is  the  use  of  the  word  Aat»co'? 
applied  to  that  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  which  had  no 
ministerial  functions.  In  such  a  sense  the  word  is  not  used 
till  a  long  time  after  Clemens.  Of  course  it  is  to  be  taken 
into  account  that  he  does  not  apply  it  in  any  way  to  the 
Christian  Church.  He  is  speaking  of  the  Jewish  alone,  and, 
as  in  other  matters  so  in  this,  he  leaves  the  reader  to  apply 
it  as  best  he  can  to  the  Christian  system.  But  even  as 
applied  to  Jewish  men  it  is  without  parallel.  Still  we  do  not 
think  these  reasons  warrant  the  rejection  of  the  passage ;  they 
merely  excite  susjncion,  and  we  may  endure  this  suspicion 
with  the  more  ease,  that  as  the  chapters  contain  a  piece  of 
unexplained  yrwcrts,  we  gain  nothing  by  a  knowledge  of  its 
genuineness  or  spuriousness  but  the  fact  of  the  yvOxyis. 

As  a  set-off  to  these  speculations  with  regard  to  the 
integrity  of  the  epistle,  we  must  take  into  account  that  the 
letter  was  well  known  in  early  times.  We  have  express 
testimony  that  it  was  read  in  various  churches,  and  was 
reckoned  by  some  as  inspired.  AVe  have  already  seen  that 
it  was  read  in  the  Corinthian  Church  on  the  Sunday  towards 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  Eusebius  asserts  that  it  was 
read  publicly  in  his  day*,  and  Jerome  sa3^s  the  same  of 
his  time,  ''qua?  et  in  nonnullis  locis  publice  legitur*."  The 
position,  at  the  end  of  the  Alexandrian  codex,  in  which  the 
only  manuscript  of  it  now  remaining  has  been  found,  is  proof 
that  the  transcribers  of  it  regarded  it  at  least  as  not  un- 
worthy to  be  placed  as  an  addition  to  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.     These    circumstances    are    considerable    security 

y  Junius,  Lipsius,  Bunsen,  Hilgenfeld.  "  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  i6. 

"  Pe  Viris  lllustribu.s^  c.  15. 


11]  CLE  MESS    RO.VAXUS.  105 

for  tlie  fidelity  of  transcribers;  but  our  trust  in  tliem  would 
be  much  g'reater  had  we  more  manuscripts.  In  addition  to 
this  evidence  we  must  take  into  account  the  circumstance 
tliat  the  epistle  has  been  largely  quoted  by  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  and  that  by  far  the  best  explanation  of  the  coinci- 
dence of  the  letter  of  Polycarp  with  that  of  Clemens  in  many 
passages  is  that  Polycarp  had  the  letter  of  Clemens  in  his 
hands  or  memory. 

The  date  of  the  letter  has  yet  to  be  settled.  It  has  been 
variously  fixed  at  67  or  68,  and  96  or  97.  Some  in  more 
recent  times  have  assigned  it  to  the  second  century  ^ ;  but  as 
this  opinion  is  based  almost,  if  not  entirely,  on  conjecture 
with  regard  to  the  process  of  development  of  the  Pauline 
and  Petrine  controversy,  we  must  dismiss  such  a  subjective 
test,  and  consider  only  the  other  two  opinions. 

With  this  question  is  mixed  up  that  of  the  date  of  Cle- 
mens's  oversight  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  they  are  not 
indissolubly  connected.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  Clemens 
may  have  been  fixed  on  by  the  Roman  Church  as  the  com- 
poser of  their  letter,  even  though  he  were  not  overseer.  It 
was  the  most  eloquent  and  persuasive  writer  that  was  re- 
quired, and  unquestionably  they  found  in  Clemens  a  suitable 
man,  whatever  may  be  the  period  at  which  he  wrote.  If  we 
accept  as  the  right  translation  of  the  j)assage  in  Eusebius 
that  which  I  have  given,  we  have  then  the  authority  of 
Hegesii)pus  for  saying  that  the  letter  was  written  in  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  As  however  a  great  deal  of  internal 
evidence  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  this  point,  we  shall 
examine  it  in  detail.  We  shall  follow  Hefelec,  who  has  well 
arranged  the  arguments  for  the  year  68,  and  replied  to  the 
objections  taken  against  it, 

I.  The  writer  thus  refers  to  Paul,  and  prol)ably  also  to 
Peter.  "  But  to  stop  referring  to  ancient  examples,  let  us 
come   to   the   athletes   who   were   nearest    us.     Let    us    lake 

i*  Scliwegler  :  Nachapostol.  Zeitalter.  ii.  125  ff.  I5aur  ;  Streitschrift  gegen 
Bunsen,  p.  i  27  fF. 

•^  Prolegomena.  |>.  xix. 


lOP)  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

the  nuljle  examples  of  our  own  generation.  On  account  of 
jealousy  and  envy  the  greatest  and  justest  ])illars  were 
persecuted,  and  even  went  to  death.  Let  us  place  before 
our  eyes  the  good  apostles. '^  Then  the  writer  refers  to  two 
apostles,  one  of  whose  names  is  imperfect  in  the  manuscript, 
but  is  probably  Peter ;  the  other  is  Paul.  Here  it  is  argued 
that  the  word  *  nearest'  eyyiora,  is  applicable  only  if  the 
epistle  were  written  immediately  after  the  deaths  of  Peter 
and  Paul.  But  this  depends  entirely  on  the  olyects  com- 
pared. Now  the  examples  he  had  just  quoted  were  Aaron 
and  Miriam,  Dathan  and  Al»iram,  and  David.  Coming  down 
to  what  he  would  call  modern  times,  he  might  easily  apply 
the  term  h/yiara  to  any  within  a  century  or  two  of  his  own 
period,  wlien  he  was  dealing  with  such  ancient  times  as 
those  of  David.  There  is  therefore  not  the  slightest  reason 
in  this  expression  for  fixing  the  date  to  a.d.  68. 

2.  A  persecution  is  mentioned  in  chapter  i.  and  then  there 
is  supposed  to  be  a  description  of  a  persecution  in  chapter  \'i. 
which  Hefele  identifies  with  that  of  chapter  i.  The  de- 
scription in  chapter  vi.  he  says,  suits  only  the  persecution  of 
Nero,  which  was  unusually  severe,  and  is  inappropriate  to 
that  of  Domitian  v.-hich  was  not  so  terrible.  The  passage 
is  a  continuation  of  the  preceding :  "  Along  with  these  men 
(the  apostles)  who  lived  holy  lives,  were  associated  a  large 
multitude  of  the  elect,  who,  having  suffered  through  envy 
many  indignities  and  tortures,  became  most  beautiful  examples 
in  the  midst  of  us."  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  here 
no  description  of  a  persecution  at  all.  Along  with  Paul  and 
Peter  there  were  vast  mmibers  of  men  who  were  also  Christian 
athletes.  This  is  all  Clemens  says ;  and  such  a  description 
would  be  quite  apjn-opriate  to  times  when  there  was  no 
general  per.^ecution,  but  merely  much  private  persecution,  such 
as  always  existed  against  the  Christians  in  early  times.  It 
seems  to  me  that  there  is  therefore  no  express  reference  to  any 
particular  j^eriod,  but  to  tlie  annoyances  that  all  the  Christian 
atliletos  endured.  And  I  am  confirmed  in  this  by  the  turn 
whicli  Clcnicns's  llioughts  take  immediately  after  meutio!iing 


II.]  CLEMEXS    ROMAXUS.  107 

this  groat  multitude.  He  first  deseribes  women  who  endured 
extreme  indignities  and  gained  heavenly  reward.  Then  he 
adds  :  "  Jealousy  has  alienated  the  hearts  of  wives  from  their 
husbands,  and  altered  that  which  w^as  said  by  our  father 
Adam,  '  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone  and  flesh  of  my 
flesh.'  Jealousy  and  strife  have  overturned  great  cities  and 
rooted  out  great  nations.^'  And  so  here  he  ends  with  his 
instances  of  the  effects  of  jealousy  and  strife. 

3.  Hefele  grounds  his  third  argument  on  the  same  pas- 
sages. If  Clemens  had  written  after  the  persecution  of 
Domitian,  would  he  not  have  mentioned  some  of  those 
illustrious  men  who  suffered  in  it ;  such  as  Flavins  Clemens, 
Ancilius  Glabrio,  Fiavia  Domitilla,  John  the  Evangelist  ? 
The  answer  to  this  is,  that  Clemens  would  mention  only 
those  who  were  well  known  to  tlie  Corinthians,  and  that  in 
fiict  he  mentions  only  two,  though  many  had  suffered  in  the 
persecution  of  Nero  and  before  that  time;  that  the  three 
whom  Hefele  speaks  of  were  not  more  deserving  of  notice 
than  hundreds  of  others  of  that  generation  who  had  been 
ecpially  persecuted  ;  and  that  as  for  John  it  would  be  pre- 
mature speaking  of  him  before  he  was  dead.  Besides,  Peter 
and  Paul  were  quite  sufficient  particular  illustrations  of 
what  he  wished  to  show,  without  introducing  any  more. 

4.  The  fourth  argument  is  derived  from  chapters  xl.  and 
xli.  in  which  Clemens  is  sui)po.sed  to  speak  of  the  temple 
as  yet  standing,  and  conseciuently  it  is  inferred  that  the 
letter  must  have  been  written  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. 

The  interpretation  of  these  chapters  however  ought,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  ])e  allegorical.  And  Clemens  speaks  of  these 
things  as  existing,  not  because  they  existed  in  his  time,  but 
because  they  existed  in  the  Old  Testament,  signs  and  symbols 
of  everliving  truths. 

Most  of  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  on  the 
other  side  are  equally  unsatisfactory.  Clemens,  in  referring 
to  PauFs  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  asks  the  question, 
"What    did    lie   write   first   to   vdu   in   the  beginning  of   the 


108  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

Gospel  ^  ?"  From  this  some  liave  inferred  that  a  long-  time 
must  have  elapsed  between  Paul's  first  letter  and  that  of  Cle- 
mens. The  inference  is  unwarranted.  Then  in  the  same  chapter 
Clemens  calls  the  Corinthian  Church  an  "ancient"  (a/^xaiar) 
Church,  and  from  this  it  is  inferred  that  Clemens's  time 
must  have  been  considerably  removed  from  that  of  the 
founding  of  the  Church  of  Corinth.  But  here  everything 
depends  upon  the  objects  compared,  and  no  one  can  doubt 
that  in  comparison  with  other  Churches  the  Church  of 
Corinth  cotdd  appropriately  be  called  "  ancient,"  even  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles.  Besides,  as  Dodwell  remarks,  a 
Church  could  well  be  called  apyaia  which  was  founded  kv  apxij 
Tov  evayyikCov^.  Some  have  found  an  arg-ument  for  the  date 
of  the  letter  in  the  passag-es  which  correspond  to  those  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
they  say  must  have  been  written  between  a.d.  70  and  80. 
This  letter  of  Clemens  cpiotes  from  this  epistle,  and  must 
therefore  have  been  written  after  it^  The  arg-ument  how- 
ever is  a  very  unsatisfactory  one.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  may  have  quoted  from  Clemens,  and  not 
Clemens  from  him.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  may  have 
been  written  by  Clemens.  And  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  by  no  means  an  easily  settled  question. 

Hilgenfeld  has  also  appealed  to  the  word  yered,  which 
he  considers  as  meaning-  only  a  space  of  thirt}'  years.  The 
letter  therefore  could  not  have  been  written  more  than  thirty 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  But 
this  limitation  of  the  meaning-  of  yevcd  is  unwarranted?. 
Perhaps  the  only  real  indication  of  the  date  of  the  letter  is 
contained  in  some  passages  that  refer  to  the  appointment 
of  overseers.  Clemens  makes  mention  of  elders  "  appointed 
by  the  apostles  or  afterwards  by  other  illustrious  men,"  and 
speaks  of  them   "  as  borne  witness  to   for  a   long  period." 

•^  c.  xlvii. 

e  Addit.  ad  Pearsoriii  Dissert,  ii.  de  Successione  Pontif.    I\om.  cap.  vi.  §. 
2.^.     See  also  Grabe  Spicll.  vol.  i.  p.  256. 

'  See  Ekker,  p.  101.  <=  Ekker.  p   qC\ 


II.]  CLEMENS   BOM  AX  US.  109 

{^(ixaprvprjixerovs  ttoAAois  xpo'rois) .  We  have  here  the  age  of 
the  apostles,  then  we  have  ilhistrious  men  after  their  day, 
and  we  have  elders  living*  for  a  long  time  after  these 
illustrious  men  had  succeeded  to  the  function  of  the 
apostles  alluded  to.  Thirty  or  forty  years  after  the  death 
of  Peter  and  Paul  would  not  he  too  much  to  account  for 
such  a  statement h. 

There  has  been  much  useless  discussion  as  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Corinthian  Church  which  called  forth  this 
letter.  The  only  source  of  information  which  we  have  as  to 
particulars  is  the  letter  itself,  and  ing-enious  trifling  has 
drawn  out  of  the  most  innocent  assertions  the  most  extra- 
ordinary theories'.  Some  have  attributed  the  dissensions 
to  the  party  of  Christ  mentioned  in  PauFs  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  as  if  they  knew  what  that  was"^.  Gundert 
assigns  them  to  the  Pauline  party ;  and  Uhlhorn,  in  addition 
to  the  Christ  party,  introduces  false  teachers,  especially 
Docetes'.  Even  Lipsius  presses  the  matter  too  far  when  he 
supposes  that  the  character  of  the  disturbers  of  the  Corin- 
thian Church  is  to  be  inferred  from  every  admonition  given 
in  the  letter.  The  extreme  probability  is,  that  the  quarrels 
were  entirely  personal  and  not  doctrinal.  The  letter  expressly 
accuses  a  few  headlong  and  self-willed  individuals  as  the 
cause™.  They  were  anxious  to  expel  some  of  the  presbyters 
from  their  oversight.  We  are  not  acquainted  with  their 
reasons ;  but  from  the  tenor  of  the  letter  we  may  infer  that 
they  were  largely  actuated  by  jealousy  and  a  high  opinion 
of  themselves.  We  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  good 
reason  for  supposing  that  they  prided  themselves,  in  contrast 

>•  See  Ekker,  p.  99.  Ekker  refutes  both  Hefele  and  Schwegler  as  to  the 
date  in  a  very  honest  and  satisfactory  manner. 

'  Ekker  refutes  the  purely  gratuitous  suppositions  of  Rothe,  and  submits 
the  ideas  of  Sehenkel  and  Hilgenfeld  to  a  thorough  examination,  and  shows 
their  incorrectness.  His  conclusions  are  nearly  the  same  as  those  given  in 
the  text,  ch.  iL 

^  Sehenkel,  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1841),  p.  61. 

'  See,  for  an  exposition  of  these,  Lipsius,  p.  119. 

"  c.  i. 


no         THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATIfKES.  [Chap. 

with  the  elders,  on  their  wisdom,  strei)<i;-th,  riches,  chastity, 
or  power  ot"  gnostic  interpretation.  On  the  contrary,  if  they 
had  done  so,  the  letter  would  directly  have  combated  such 
pretensions,  while  the  allusion  to  these  qualities  is  merely 
incidental.  Indeed,  if  there  were  any  doctrine  at  all  on 
which  we  could  suppose  that  there  was  a  dispute,  it  would 
be  that  of  the  resurrection,  for  the  writer  is  eager  to 
establish  it.  But  as  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  dissentients 
in  connection  with  this  doctrine,  we  must  regard  the  intro- 
duction of  the  subject  as  intended  either  to  benefit  the 
Church  generally,  or  some  portion  of  it  which  may  or  may 
not  have  been  composed  of  dissentients,  or  may  have  been 
composed  of  both  parties. 

It  is  important  to  notice  too,  that  though  the  letter  lays 
the  blame  on  a  ^ow  individuals,  it  does  not  hesitate  to  rebuke 
the  whole  Church.  It  describes  in  glowing  language  its 
extraordinary  pros})erity  and  goodness,  and  then  goes  on  to 
state  that  it  grew  proud  of  itsell*,  and  from  this  sprung 
jealousy,  strife,  and  disorder,  the  dishonoured  rising  up 
against  the  honoured,  the  foolish  against  the  thoughtful, 
and  the  young  against  the  elders". 

We  may  now  sum  up  in  a  few  words  the  results  of  our 
investigations,  both  as  to  Clemens  and  the  letter.  We  have 
most  distinct  evidence  with  regard  to  these  two  facts,  that 
disputes  among  the  Corinthians  arose  in  the  time  of  Domi- 
tian,  that  the  Roman  Church  then  sent  a  letter  to  the 
Coi-inthians,  and  that  at  that  time  Clemens  held  office  in 
the  Roman  Church.  Later  but  apparently  not  untrust- 
worthy evidence  leads  us  to  believe  that  Clemens  was  the 
writer  of  the  letter,  though  it  is  not  impossible  that  because 
he  was  known  to  be  connected  with  the  Roman  Church  at 
that  period,  the  letter  without  further  investigation  was 
believed  to  be  his.  We  also  have  good  testimony  for  believ- 
ing that  Clemens  had  heard  some  of  the  apostles  preach. 
This  is  all  we  know. 

We  may  remark  here  that  Clemens  has  been  the  hero  of 
"  c  3. 


T-I.]  CLL'MEXS   liOMAXr'S.  Ill 

moilern  historical  fancies,  as  well  as  of  ancient.  Especially 
Kestner,  in  his  Ag-ape  (Jena  1819),  a  work  which  at  the 
time  of  its  appearance  powerfully  stirred  the  German  mind, 
supposed  that  Christianity  was  spread  by  means  of  a  secret 
society  of  which  our  Clemens  was  the  founder.  He  devised 
this  plan  of  revolutionizing*  the  world  through  Christianity^. 

We  now  proceed  to  examine  the  letter  itself. 

The  letter  bears  a  striking'  resemblance  in  turn  of  thought 
and  even  in  style  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
is,  as  it  has  often  been  called,  a  truly  apostolical  writing".  The 
writer  never  speculates.  He  forms  to  himself  no  complete 
system  of  theology.  He  believes  in  the  truths  as  facts,  and 
they  come  out  as  they  have  relation  to  the  practice  of  daily 
life.  And  then  throughout  the  wdiole  there  runs  a  continual 
reference  of  all  matters  to  God.  The  writer  continually  has 
before  him  the  idea  of  an  ever-present,  loving,  and  providing 
Father,  in  whose  hands  he  and  all  his  brethren  are.  His 
references  to  Christ  are  of  the  same  nature.  He  always 
thinks  of  Him  as  his  Lord.  He  does  not  indulge  in  dry 
theories  regarding  Him.  He  gives  no  explanation  of  any 
puzzles.  He  feels  Him  to  be  a  power  working  within  him 
for  holiness.  Then  his  phraseology  is  strikingly  similar  to 
that  of  the  New  Testament.  He  speaks  of  the  ^  elect,'  of 
the  'called,'  of  'justification,'  of  those  'Avho  fall  asleep,' 
exactly  as  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  There  are  two  points 
however,  in  which  there  are  striking  differences.  The  first 
is,  that  Clemens  far  more  frequently  quotes  long  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament.  And  the  second  is  a  more  enlarged 
reference  to  the  operations  of  God  in  nature.  It  is  a  curious 
circumstance  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  never 
indvdge  in  any  lengthened  descriptions  of  the  beauties  of  the 
world  around  them,  or  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  Paul 
mentions  the  argimient  for  God  derived  from  his  works, 
and  he  has  one  grand  burst  where  he  summons  before  him 

"  See  Baur,  Ursprung  des  E])iscopats,  p.  9S.  De  Quincey  has  proposed 
something  of  the  same  nature  in  connection  with  Esseniam.  He  does  not 
however  meddle  with  Clemens. 


112  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

the  whole  creation  travailing  and   trroaning-  since  the  intro- 
duction of  sin.     But  still  he  does  not  linger  on  this  theme. 
Clemens,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  whole  cha})ter  devoted  to 
the  order  and  harmony  of  the  world ;  and  as  it  is  really  a 
beautiful  piece  of  writing,  and  tlinjws  light  on  that  tendency 
towards  expansion  of  stvle  which  gnidually  makes  the  works 
of  Christian  writers  more  voluminous  as  we  travel  from  the 
apostles,   we    trauscril)e    it :     "  The   heavens,    moved    by   his 
management,  are  obedient  to  Him  in  peace.     Day  and  night 
run   the   course   appointed   by   Him,  nowise    hindering   each 
other.     Sun  and  moon  and  the  choruses  of  the  stars  roll  on 
in  harmony  according    to   his   command,    within   their    i)re- 
scribed  limits  without   any  deviation.     The  pregnant  earth, 
according  to  his  will,  sends  up  at  the  proper  seasons  nourish- 
ment abundant  for  men  and  beasts,  and  all  the  living  things 
that  are   on   it,  neither  hesitating,  nor  altering  any   of  the 
decrees  issued  by  Him.     The  inexplorable  jiarts  of  abysses, 
and  the  inexplicable  arrangements   of  the   lower  world  are 
bound  together  by  the  same  ordinances.     The  vast  immeasur- 
able sea,  gathered  together  into  various  basins  according  to 
his  fashioning-^  never  goes  beyond  the  barriers  placed  round 
it,  but  does  as  He  has  commanded.     For   He   said  :   '  Thus 
far  shalt  thou  come,  and  thy  waves  shall  be  broken  within 
thee.^     The  ocean,  impassable  to  men,  and  the  worlds  beyond 
it  are  directed  by  the  same  commands  of  the   Lord.     The 
seasons  of  spiing  and  summer  and  autumn  and  winter  give 
place  to  each   other    in   peace.     The  stations  of   the  winds 
at  the  proper  season  perform  their  service  without  hindrance. 
The    everflowing   fountains,    fashioned    for    enjoyment    and 
health,  never  fail  to  afford  their  breasts  to  nourish  the  life 
of  men.     And  the  smallest  of  living  things  meet  together 
in  peace  and   concord.     All  these   the  great   Fashioner  and 
Lord   of  all    hus    appointed    to    be   in    peace    and   concord; 
doing  good  to  the  whole,  but  exceedingly  abundantl}-  to  us 
who   have  fled  for  refuge  to  his  mercies  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  lie  glory  and  majesty  for  ever  and 
ever.     Amen." 


II.]  CLE  MESS    ROMAN  US.  WW 

The  theology  of  Clemens  has  been  a  matter  of  considerahle 
discussion  among-  those  who  can  trace  a  difference  between 
the  thought  of  Paul  and  Peter;  and  there  has  been  keen 
contention  as  to  how  far  Clemens  followed  or  abandoned  the 
ideas  of  Paul.  As  I  do  not  believe  in  this  difference  between 
Peter  and  Paul^  I  leave  my  readers  to  judge  the  matter  for 
themselves  in  the  abstract  which  I  give  of  Clemens's  theo- 
logy. Meantime  I  place  before  them  the  opinions  of  some 
of  the  best  critics  of  Clemens.  Reuss,  while  contrasting  the 
letter  of  Clemens  with  that  to  the  Hebrews,  says :  "  The 
letter  of  Clemens  is  still  farther  removed  from  Paul;  the 
evangelic  thought  grows  less  and  becomes  paler ;  the  mysti- 
cism has  disappeared ;  there  is  no  longer  any  question  about 
imputation  in  respect  of  regenerating  faith ;  salvation  is 
produced  by  the  action  of  external  causes  operating  on  the 
will  of  man ;  works  re-assume  an  important  place,  if  not 
the  first;  God  Himself  and  the  angels  give  an  example  of 
this ;  the  fear  of  judgment  is  anew  the  motive  of  human 
vii-tue,  as  under  the  ancient  law  P."  ''  Behold  then,"  he  says 
a  few  pages  farther  on,  "  faith  and  hope  have  become 
synonymous,  as  we  have  seen  already  elsewhere ;  then  faith 
is  attached  to  God  and  not  to  Christ;  there  is  no  idea  of 
a  direct  and  intimate  relation  between  Him  and  the  believer  ; 
in  fine,  redemption  is  a  fact  accomplished  without  man 
who  is  to  profit  by  it;  and  it  arrives  at  this  last  stage  in 
consequence  of  another  act  which  remains  absolutely  foreign 
to  the  first.  This  fundamental  point  of  the  gospel  has 
become  then,  at  the  end  of  some  dozens  of  years,  a  vulgar 
formula,  an  article  of  the  catechism,  which  people  learn  by 
heart,  without  at  all  comprehending  it,  and  above  all  without 
having  felt  in  themselves  its  great  importance  "i." 

Lipsius  traces  the  agreement  and  disagreement  of  Clemens 
with  Paul  in  the  various  points  of  his  doctrine.  He  supposes 
Clemens  to  differ  from  Paul  in  making  faith  not  so  much  the 
source  of  a  new  life  as  a  finn  conviction  of  the  mind  concern- 
ing the  Divine  will;  in  speaking  of  justification  by  works,  and 

p  Histoire  de  la  Th^ologie  Chr^tienne,  vol.  ii.  p.  3^1  '  Ibul.  p.  323. 

VOL.  I.  1 


114  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

thus  approaching  to  the  opinion  of  James;  in  making  faith 
and  virtue  have  the  same  effect;  and,  in  fact,  in  making  justi- 
fication not  merely  the  result  of  faith,  but  of  good  works.  He 
maintains  that  "  Clemens  did  not  dare  to  deny  the  vicarious 
death  of  Christ,  for  he  was  unwilling  to  contradict  Paul,  but 
he  did  not  know  how  it  was  to  be  understood''."  He  finds 
also  a  difference  between  Paul  and  Clemens,  in  that  the  latter 
regarded  "  the  resurrection  of  Christ  not  as  the  cause  (prin- 
cipium),  but  simply  as  the  beginning  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead^.'"  Hilgenfeld  finds  in  Clemens  modified  Paulin- 
ism.  The  modifications  he  discovers  especially  in  the  stress 
laid  on  works,  in  a  more  thorough  identification  of  the  reve- 
lation before  Christ  mth  the  Christian,  and  in  a  reference 
of  the  constitution  of  the  Church  to  the  Levitical  priesthood ; 
though  he  agrees  with  the  opinion  that  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood was  only  a  typical  model*.  Schwegler "  thinks  that 
Clemens  attempted  to  reconcile  the  opinions  of  Paid  and 
James,  Paulinism  and  Ebionitism;  and  Kostlin^  maintains 
that  the  letter  could  not  have  been  written  under  a  Pauline 
direction,  and  he  infers  consequently  that  a  Petrine  Jewish- 
Christianity  must  have  had  the  preponderance  in  the  Roman 
Church. 

II.    ABSTKACT  OF  THE  LETTER. 

The  letter  opens  thus  :  "  The  Church  of  God  that  sojom-ns 
at  Rome  to  the  Church  of  God  that  sojourns  at  Corinth, 
called,  made  holy  in  the  will  of  God,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  grace  and  peace  be  midtiplied  to  you  from 
Almighty  God  through  Jesus  Christ."  The  church  in  Rome 
assures  the  church  in  Corinth  that  they  have  been  prevented 
by  their  own  troubles  from  addressing  them  in  regard  to  the 
sedition  that  had  arisen  among  them,  and  which  had  caused 
their    good    name    to    be    evil    spoken    of.      The   church   in 

*■  Lipsius,  p.  8?.  s  Ibid.  85. 

'  Hilgenfeld,  Apoat.  Vivter,  p.  88.  For  the  opinions  of  others,  see  Hilgenfeld, 
p.  86,  and  Lipsius.  Ekker  refutes  Schwegler,  Kitschl,  and  Hilgenfeld.  His 
opinions  are  in  the  main  the  same  as  those  stated  in  the  text. 

•1  Nachapost.  Zeitalter,  vol.  ii.  p.  128.  '  Theolog.  Jahrb.  1850.  247  ft. 


II.]  CLEMENIS    HOMANUS.  115 

Corinth  was  formerly  distinguished  for  every  Christian  grace, 
hospitality,  humility,  prayerfulness,  and  peacefulness.  But  a 
change  had  come  over  them.  They  were  too  prosperous,  and 
began  to  quarrel,  and  to  be  jealous  of  each  other,  and  full  of 
pai'ty  spirit.  It  was  this  jealousy  that  brought  death  first 
into  the  world,  Cain  envying  Abel ;  and  the  dire  effects  of  it 
are  illustrated  in  the  histories  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  Joseph  and 
his  brethren,  Moses,  Aaron,  Miriam,  Dathan,  Abiram,  David, 
and  in  the  persecutions  of  many  men  of  their  own  gene- 
ration, Peter  and  Paul  being  most  striking  examples.  The 
church  rehearses  these  for  their  own  sakes  as  well  as  for  the 
Corinthians.  They  have  both  the  same  struggle,  and  ought 
therefore  to  be  serious  and  earnest,  and  then  the  Corinthians 
would  see  that  God,  in  all  generations,  gave  men  opportu- 
nities to  return  from  their  sins  to  a  better  state  of  mind. 
This  they  prove  from  the  Old  Testament;  and  therefore 
both  of  them  ought  to  lay  aside  all  party  spirit  and  selfish- 
ness, looking  to  the  noble  examples  of  faith  and  obedience 
which  the  Old  Testament  furnishes.  Among  these  examples 
they  instance  Enoch  and  Noah  and  Abraham ;  and  they 
show  what  advantage  came  to  Lot  and  Rahab  on^  account 
of  faith  and  hospitality.  They  therefore  exhort  themselves 
and  the  Corinthians  to  be  humble  minded,  to  obey  God, 
and  to  side  with  those  who  wish  for  peace  and  concord. 
And  they  enforce  theii-  exhortation  by  quoting  from  Isaiah 
liii.  the  description  of  the  humility  and  meekness  of  Christ, 
and  by  exhibiting  the  humility  of  the  most  devout  men 
of  the  Jewish  economy — Elijah,  Elisha,  Ezekiel,  Abraham, 
Job,  and  Moses.  They  also  quote,  as  a  fine  instance  of 
deep  contrition  of  heart  and  humility,  David's  Psalm  li. 
If  they  were  to  take  these  men  as  examples,  they  would  seek 
peace  and  concord;  but  they  go  to  a  still  higher  example. 
Look  how  longsuffering  God  is  to  men,  how  noiselessly 
and  yet  harmoniously  He  conducts  all  the  affairs  of  this 
world — one  thing  never  opposing  another.  If  they  were  to 
act  worthily  of  such  a  God,  all  things  would  have  to  be  done 
in  order  and  peace.     And  here  they  give  general  directions  as 

I  2 


in;  TJIE   ArosTuLlCAL    FAT  UK  US.         [Chap. 

to  the  resi)ect  due  to  the  g'uides  of  the  church  and  the  elders, 
and  the  duties  to  be  inculcated  on  the  youno;  men  and  women 
and  children.  These  duties  and  exhortations  also  are  con- 
hrmed  by  I'aith  in  Christ,  for  they  oug-ht  not  to  waver  in 
their  belief  of  the  coming-  of  the  Lord.  Indeed,  a  resur- 
rection is  plainly  exhibited  to  us  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  in  the  changes  of  day  and  night,  in  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  seed  into  a  plant,  and  in  the  renewal  of  the 
plKienix.  A  belief  in  this  fact  furnishes  strong  reasons  for 
obedience  to  God,  from  whom  nothing  is  hid,  and  therefore 
they  ought  not  to  delay  in  giving  up  sinful  desires,  appealing 
to  God's  mercy,  and  doing  what  is  pleasing  to  God.  For  the 
indulgence  of  sin  leads  to  God's  curse,  while  righteousness 
has  his  blessing.  They  should  therefore  earnestly  incpiire 
after  the  ways  of  God's  blessing,  and  they  would  find  it  in 
being  made  righteous  through  faith.  Not  that  they  were  to 
give  up  the  doing  of  good  works ;  for,  as  God  delights  in  his 
own  works,  and  especially  in  man  his  noblest  work,  so 
righteous  men  were  always  adorned  with  good  works.  Be- 
sides, God  rewards  his  servants.  They  should  therefore  obey 
God's  will,  and,  contemplating  the  angels,  who  cry  out  "  Holy, 
holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth !"  they  should  with  one 
accord  entreat  Him  continually  that  He  would  make  them 
partakers  of  his  glorious  promises.  How  glorious  are  the 
gifts  which  God  bestows,  and  how  wonderful  must  those 
things  be  which  God  has  prepared  for  those  who  wait  for 
Him !  Therefore  they  should  wait  for  Him,  and  follow 
that  course  of  conduct  which  is  pleasing  to  Him,  and  which 
will  bring'  us  to  salvation.  But  Jesus  Christ  is  their  salva- 
tion. Through  Him  they  have  had  their  eyes  opened,  and 
through  Him  the  Lord  has  wished  them  to  taste  of  immortal 
knoAvledge.  They  ought  therefore  to  be  earnest  in  their 
Christian  warfare,  noticing  how  regularly  each  part  of  the 
Roman  army  works  into  another ;  how  each  part  of  the  body 
is  necessary  to  the  rest.  So  they  ought  to  let  each  one  have 
his  proper  place  in  the  Christian  work,  and  all  should  be 
humble.     For  \\hat  is,  after  all,  the  power  of  any  earthborn 


II.]  CLEMEXS   ROMAXUS.  117 

creature  ?  Looking"  therefore  into  the  depths  of  divine 
knowledge,  they  should  do  all  things  orderly.  Look  at  the 
order  in  the  Jewish  economy,  with  special  work  for  the  high 
priest,  for  the  priests,  and  for  the  Levites,  and  especial  seasons 
for  everything.  So  in  the  Church  :  Christ  was  sent  from  God, 
and  the  apostles  from  Christ;  and  then  these  apostles  ap- 
pointed their  first  converts  as  overseers  and  deacons  of  those 
who  were  to  believe.  What  can  they  find  astonishing  in  this, 
when  they  look  at  the  mode  in  which  Moses  appointed  the 
priesthood?  And  as  the  apostles  knew  there  would  be  a 
strife  about  the  oversight,  they  appointed  other  persons  to 
succeed  the  persons  first  appointed  should  they  die.  Those 
presbyters  are  happy  who  have  died,  as  they  were  unmolested 
in  their  ofiice,  for  they  (the  Roman  church)  see  that  some  of 
the  Corinthians  have  been  removing  holy  men  from  a  service 
which  they  performed  with  credit.  Such  conduct  proves 
them  to  be  fond  of  strife  and  party  spirit.  The  Scriptures 
always  represent  those  men  as  bad  who  inflict  injury  on  the 
good.  They  should  therefoi'e  adhere  to  the  good,  giving  up 
all  dissension,  and  recognising  the  unity  of  the  saints  in 
ha%nng  one  God,  one  Christ,  and  one  Spirit  of  grace.  Thc}^ 
(the  Corinthians)  should  look  at  PauFs  letter  to  them.  There 
they  were  accused  of  party  spirit.  But  their  conduct  now 
was  much  worse.  Then  they  had  adhered  to  apostolic  men  ; 
but  now,  what  were  the  persons  that  caused  the  outbreak 
against  the  elders?  Only  one  or  two  persons  of  no  conse- 
quence. And  the  rumour  had  reached  the  ears  not  of  them 
(the  Romans)  only,  but  of  those  inclined  to  different  courses 
altogether  (erepo/cAtrets,  tlie  heathen  according  to  Hilgenfeld, 
p.  ^^,  note),  so  that  the  Lord's  name  was  evil  spoken  of. 
This  must  not  be.  They  must  pray  God  to  be  reconciled  to 
them,  and  they  must  enter  anew  the  gate  of  righteousness 
which  is  in  Christ.  And  the  fact  is,  the  greater  a  man  seems 
to  be,  the  more  humble  ought  he  to  be,  and  the  more  ought 
he  to  seek  the  common  good.  For  he  who  has  love  in  Christ 
keeps  Christ's  commandments.  And  the  effects  of  love  no 
one  can  adequately  describe.     Those  who  do  God's  command- 


118  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

ments  in  the  concord  of  love  have  their  sins  foro^iven.  There- 
fore those  who  are  the  leaders  of  this  sedition  should  confess 
their  sins,  taking  warning  from  what  happened  to  those  who 
hardened  their  hearts  rebelling  against  Moses,  and  to  Pha- 
raoh with  his  Egj-ptians.  God  requires  simply  confession. 
And  if  they  were  to  look  into  the  sacred  writings,  they  would 
find  a  beautiful  instance  of  self-renunciation  in  the  case  of 
Moses.  And  the  man  now  who  has  real  love  would  retire 
to  whatever  place  the  church  might  wish  him,  rather  than 
cause  or  keep  up  strife.  They  (the  Romans)  would  adduce 
instances  of  such  self-renunciation  even  from  heathens — the 
kings  and  leaders  who  sacrificed  themselves  for  the  good  of 
their  people.  And  even  women  had  strength  given  them, 
Judith  and  Esther  for  instance.  Both  Romans  and  Cor- 
inthians should  pray  for  those  in  sin,  that  they  might  yield 
to  God^s  will.  Mutual  admonition  is  good  for  both,  for  God 
chastises  whom  He  loves.  They  therefore  advise  the  Cor- 
inthians to  be  subject  to  their  presbyters,  and  submit  to  being 
found  unimportant  but  of  good  character  among  the  flock  of 
Christ,  rather  than,  seeming  to  be  above  all,  to  be  cast  off"  from 
the  hope  of  Christ.  For  in  Prov.  i.  23-31,  Wisdom  denounces 
fearful  calamities  on  those  who  reject  her  counsel.  They  con- 
clude with  the  wish  that  God  might  grant  them  faith,  peace, 
longsuffering,  and  other  blessings,  through  their  high  priest 
Jesus  Christ.  And  then  they  mention  that  they  hope  the 
Corinthians  will  soon  send  back  the  three  persons,  Claudius 
Ephebus,  Valerius  Biton,  and  Fortunatus,  whom  the  Roman 
church  had  commissioned  to  visit  them,  with  the  good  news 
of  the  restoration  of  perfect  peace  and  harmony.  The  last 
words  are  :  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you 
and  with  all  everywhere  who  have  been  called  by  God  and 
through  Him,  through  whom  to  Him  be  glory,  honour, 
power,  and  greatness,  an  eternal  throne,  from  the  ages  to  the 
ages  of  ages.    Amen." 

III.    WRITINGS  ASCIUBED  TO  CLEMENS. 

Eusobin?-   informs  us    that   there  were   other    writings    as- 


II.]  CLEMENS   ROMANUS.  \\9 

cribed  by  some  to  Clemens,  \\xi  that  no  mention  was  made 
of  these  in  ancient  writers,  tie  gives  us  the  names  of  two 
of  these  productions — a  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  the  dialogues  of  Peter  and  Ajiion.  Other  spurious  works, 
which  he  does  not  name,  but  to  which  he  probably  alludes, 
are  still  extant.  These  are,  the  Recognitions,  the  Homilies, 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  and  two  Letters  on  Virginity 
preserved  in  Syriac.  We  shall  discuss  all  these  in  the  chapter 
devoted  to  the  dubious  literature  of  the  first  three  centuries. 

In  the  meantime  we  have  one  work  to  notice,  as  having 
had  Clemens^s  name  connected  with  it.  This  is  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  writers  at- 
tributed this  production  to  Clemens.  A  full  discussion 
of  this  subject  belongs  to  a  consideration  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  We  lay  before  the  reader  only  the  state- 
ments that  refer  to  Clemens.  These  occur  in  two  passages 
in  Eusebius,  iu  one  of  which  he  speaks  in  his  own  person, 
in  the  other  he  quotes  Origen.  In  speaking  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  Eusebius  remarks  that  Clemens  introduces 
into  it  many  thoughts  similar  to  those  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  also  borrows  several  expressions  from 
it  word  for  word.  Then  he  informs  us  that  some  in  his 
day  said  that  Paul  addressed  the  Hebrews  in  his  own  lan- 
guage, and  that  Luke  translated  his  writing  into  Greek; 
while  others  said  that  Clemens  was  the  interpreter.  This 
he  thinks  would  account  for  the  similar  style  and  turn  of 
thought  in  both  epistles  X.  In  the  passage  quoted  from 
Origen  it  is  remarked  that  the  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  more  classical  than  PauFs,  while  the  thoughts 
are  not  inferior  to  those  of  his  acknowledged  Epistles.  And 
then  Origen  adds  :  "  If  I  were  to  express  my  opinion,  I  should 
say  that  the  thoughts  are  the  apostle's,  but  that  the  phrase- 
ology and  composition  are  those  of  some  one  who  has  re- 
corded the  apostle's  instructions,  and  who  has  as  it  were 
written  down  notes  of  what  had  been  said  by  the  teacher. 
If  any  church  then  regards  this  letter  as  Paul's,  let  it  be 
>■  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  38. 


•>o 


THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 


commended  for  this.  Yov  not  rashly  did  the  ancient  men 
hand  it  down  as  being  PauFs.  But  who  it  was  that  really 
wrote  the  letter  God  only  knows;  but  the  accounts  which 
have  come  down  to  us  are  two :  one  party  saying'  that 
Clemens,  who  was  overseer  of  the  Romans,  wrote  the  letter ; 
the  other  saying  that  it  was  written  by  Luke,  who  wrote 
the  Gosjiel  and  the  Acts)'."  The  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  seems  thus  even  in  ancient  times  to  have 
been  traced  to  Clemens  mainly  in  consequence  of  its  simi- 
larity to  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  in  style  and  thought. 
Grabe  ^  has  drawn  up  a  list  of  the  passages  that  are  similar, 
which  we  now  present  as  part  of  the  evidence  such  as  it  is  : — 


Hebrews. 

i.  3,  4.  Who  being  the  brightness 
of  his  glory  ....  having  become  so 
much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he 
has  inherited  a  more  excellent  name 
than  they. 

i.  7.  And  of  the  angels  he  saith  : 
Who  maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his 
ministers  a  flame  of  fire. 

i.  5.  For  unto  which  of  the  an- 
gels said  He  at  any  time.  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee? 

i.  13.  But  to  which  of  the  angels 
said  He  at  any  time.  Sit  on  my  right 
hand,  until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy 
footstool  ? 

iii.  2.  As  also  Moses  was  faithful 
in  all  his  house.     (See  also  iii.  5.) 

iv.  14.  Seeing  then  that  we  have 
a  great  high  priest. 


Clemens. 
xxxvi.  Who  being  the  brightness  of 
his  greatness,  is  so  much  greater  than 
angels,  as  He  has  inherited  a  more 
excellent  name.  For  it  is  written 
thus :  "  Who  maketh  his  angels  spirits 
(winds),  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of 
fire."  And  in  the  case  of  his  Son  thus 
spoke  the  Lord  :  "Thou  art  my  Son, 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee :"  .  .  .  . 
And  again  He  says  to  him,  "  Sit  on 
my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine 
enemies  thy  footstool." 


xliii.  Moses,  a  faithful  servant  in 
all  his  house. 

Iviii.  Through  our  high  priest  Jesus 
Christ. 


There  is  a  general  resemblance  between  Heb.  xi.  5-20,  31, 
and  Clem.  Cor.  ix.  x.  xii.,  in  both  of  which  Enoch,  Noah, 
Abraham,  and  Rahab,  are  spoken  of  as  illustrations  of  ftiitli 
and  obedience. 


y  Eusebius,  Hist  Eccl.  vi.  25. 

'  Quoted  in  Wotton,  pp.   10.?.   104  of  Additional  Notes;   and  in  Jacobson, 
torn.  i.  p.  xiv. 


sheepskins  and  goatskins. 

xiii.  17.  Obey  them  that  have  the 
rule  over  you. 


II.]  CLEMEXS  EOMANUS.  121 

Hebrews.  I  Clemens. 

si.  37.    Thej'    wandered    about    in    |        xvii.  Who  walked  about  in  goat- 
skins and  in  sheepskins. 

i.  Being  submissive  to  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you. 

How  far  also  the  thoughts  agree,  the  reader  may  judge  for 
himself  by  comparing  the  present  exposition  of  Clemens' s 
doctrines  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

IV.    LITERATURE. 

The  single  manuscript  of  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus 
has  been  mentioned  already. 

The  tirst  edition  was  prepared  by  Patricius  Junius  (Patrick 
Young)  and  published  at  Oxford  in  1633,  quarto.  He  filled 
the  blank  spaces  with  conjectures,  which  he  printed  in  red 
characters;  he  placed  a  Latin  translation  alongside  of  the 
Greek ;  he  added  admirable  notes,  largely  interspersed  with 
apt  and  beautiful  quotations  from  the  Fathers ;  and  he  pre- 
fixed a  list  of  testimonies  of  the  ancients  to  Clemens.  He 
appended  the  fragment  of  the  so-called  second  epistle  without 
note  or  translation.  The  text  of  Junius  was  re-edited  by 
Mader  (Helmestadii  1654,  4to),  by  Bishop  Fell  (Oxford  1669, 
i2mo^),  by  Labbe  and  Cossartius  (Paris  1671,  fob),  Colome- 
sius  (Lond.  1687,  8vo),  and  in  the  collections  of  Cotelerius, 
ClericQs,  and  Ittigius,  already  mentioned.  Most  of  these 
added  dissertations  of  more  or  less  value.  Henry  Wotton 
collated  the  manuscript  again  (plusquam  semel),  and  gave  the 
results  of  his  recension  in  an  edition  published  at  Cambridge 
in  17 18,  8vo.  He  was  enabled  to  correct  several  oversights 
of  Junius.  He  supplied  valuable  notes,  and  added  those  of 
Junius,  Boisius,  and  Cotelerius.  He  prefixed  a  long  preface, 
exhibiting  the  authority  of  the  ApostoKcal  Fathers  from  the 
English  church  point  of  view,  and  discussing  the  genuineness 
of  the  Apo.stolic  Constitutions  and  the  Ignatian  letters.  He 
added  dissertations  on  the  clergy  and  the  unity  of  the  church. 

■  Fell  remarks  in  the  preface  to  the  edition  which  he  issued  in  1677  that  a 
very  learned  man  had  collated  the  text  (qui  collationem  diligentissime  insti- 
tuit)  but  had  been  ah)le  to  dete^it  Junius  only  in  a  very  few  trifling  slips. 


122  THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.  [Chap. 

In  1 721  (Paris,  f'ol.)  Coustantius  took  his  text  from  Cotele- 
rius ;  but  after  that  the  text  of  Wotton  was  followed  in  the 
subsequent  collections  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers.  Jacobson 
collated  the  manuscript  again  for  his  edition  of  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,  and  his  recension  has  been  followed  by  sul^sequent 
editors  (Hefele  and  Dressel).  He  has  made  an  admirable 
selection  of  notes  from  previous  commentators,  and  supplied 
many  of  his  own  ;  so  that  his  edition  of  the  letter  of  Clemens 
is  at  once  the  best  and  the  most  useful.  He  has  prefixed  a 
brief  account  of  all  the  editions  of  the  letter. 

The  second  letter  is  almost  always  g-iven  with  the  first,  and 
some  fragments  which  are  supposed  to  belong  to  Clemens 
Romanus  are  appended. 

"  Photographic  Facsimiles  of  the  Remains  of  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  made  from  the  unique  copy  preserved  in  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus/''  have  been  "  published  by  order  of  the 
Trustees  of  the  British  Museum,^^  Loudon  1856,  4to. 

The  best  translation  of  the  Epistle  is  by  Archbishop  Wake, 
which  has  been  republished  frequently  and  improved  by 
Temple  Chevallier. 

V.    THEOLOGY. 

God. — The  doctrines  of  Clemens,  as  we  have  said  already, 
are  all  found  in  conjunction  with  practical  thought.  Ac- 
cordingly nothing  speculative  or  merely  theoretical  is  stated 
with  regard  to  God,  nothing  of  his  character  or  pui-poses  in 
themselves.  But  still,  as  much  is  said  of  God^s  deeds  relating 
to  Christ,  to  man,  and  more  especially  to  Christians,  we  can 
form  a  tolerably  accurate  notion  of  Clemens^s  idea  of  God. 
He  speaks  of  Him  as  "  the  great  Framer  and  Lord  of  all*"," 
"  the  Father  and  Creator  of  the  whole  worldc,''  "  the  all-holy 
Framer  and  Father  of  the  ages'',"  "the  Almighty e,"  "the 
All-seeing*","  "  the  true  and  only  Gods,"  "  Lord   of  spirits 

•'  c.  20.  ^  c.  19. 

''  c.    35,    and   c.    55.     aluvuv,   'ages,'  should   most   probably   be  translated 
'worlds.'     See  commentators  on  Hebr.  i.  1. 
'  c.  2  ;  cf.  c.  27.  f  c.  55,  58  ;  cf.  c.  28.  ?  c.  43. 


II.]  CLEMEXS   ROMAN  US.  123 

and  of  all  flesh^/'  "  He  comprehends  all  things'/^  and  "his 
energyi^  pervades  all  the  operations  of  natui'e/^  "  He  made 
man  in  the  impress  or  stamp  of  his  own  image  ^^^  Almost  all 
these  statements  are  made  in  connection  wdth  the  eflPect  they 
are  calculated  to  produce  on  man.  Thus  the  fact  that  all 
things  come  from  God  is  brought  forward  as  an  inducement  to 
doing  good ;  and  his  hearing  and  seeing  all  things,  even  the 
thoughts  of  men,  and  his  possessing  all  power,  are  oftener 
than  once  adduced  for  the  same  purpose"^.  In  like  manner 
God^s  kindness  is  mentioned  as  a  reason  why  we  should  be 
kind  to  each  other" ;  his  forbearance  and  freedom  from  all 
anger  in  his  actions  towards  the  whole  creation  are  insisted 
on  as  a  cogent  argument  for  cultivating  a  spirit  of  forbear- 
ance**, and  we  are  urged  to  act  worthily  of  God  P.  Clemens 
always  contemplates  God  from  the  Christian  point  of  view. 
He  is  absolute  and  supreme  Rulerq,  and  can  do  what  He  wishes ; 
but  at  the  same  time  He  is  bound  by  the  laws  of  morality. 
"  Nothing  is  impossible  with  God  but  to  lie^■''  In  hai-mony 
with  this  moral  nature  his  whole  providential  arrangements 
are  made  out  of  love  to  men.  He  is  our  kind  and  merciful 
Father 5,  ^vho  took  us  to  Himself  in  love*.  He  is  faithful  in 
his  promises,  and  just  in  his  judgments".  He  loves  those 
who  fear  Him,  and  kindly  grants  his  graces  to  those  who 
come  to  Him  \^4th  simple  mind^.  He  needs  nothing  from 
those  coming  to  Him  except  confession  of  siny ;  and  in  his 
kindness  He  urges  men  to  return  to  his  tender  mercies^. 
He  is  Himself  the  source  of  all  moral  excellence.  He  makes 
men  righteous  through  faith  ^,  and  He  gives  room  for  change 
of  mind  to  those  who  wish  to  return  to  Him^.  He  chose  Jesus 
Christ,  and  us  through  Him  as  an  especial  people  <^.  He  is 
the  defender  of  those  who  with  piu-e  conscience  serve  his 
all- virtuous    name^.     Nevertheless     He    chastises   his    ovm 

*>  c.  58.     The  words  in  Greek  here  are,  Aeo-Trt^TTjs  rwv  irvtvudrwi'  Koi  Kvpios 
TToffTjj  ffapK6s.  '  c.  28. 

^  c.  24.  '  c.  33.  >"  c.  21,  27.  28.  "  c.  14.  "  c.  19. 

r  c.  21.  1  c.  27.  ■■  c.  27.  '  c.  29.  '  c.  49. 

"  c.  27.  '  c.  23.  >  c.  52.  '  c.  9.  "  c.  32. 

*"  c.  7.  "■  c.  58.  "^  0.4.1. 


124  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

children 6,  Lut  this  chastisement  is  for  their  ""oocF.  While 
such  as  obey  his  j)recepts  are  blessed,  the  wicked  are  hateful 
to  Him  and  cursed"?.  He  hates  those  who  praise  themselves*' ; 
and  He  made  it  manifest  in  the  case  of  Lot  and  his  wife  that 
He  does  not  abandon  those  who  place  their  hope  in  Ilim, 
while  He  punishes  and  tortures  those  who  turn  their  minds 
from  Him'.  In  one  passag-e  God  is  said  to  have  been  propi- 
tiated. "  The  Ninevites,  chang-ing*  their  minds  in  reference  to 
their  sins,  propitiated  (e^iA ao-arro)  God  by  their  prayers,  and 
received  salvationJ.^^    Frecpieut  mention  is  made  of  God^s  elect. 

Christ. — Photius*^  remarked  of  this  letter  of  Clemens,  "that, 
while  naming  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  high  priest  and  defender, 
he  did  not  utter  God-becoming  and  loftier  words  with  regard  to 
Him^^  {ovh\  TOLS  OeoTTpeiiels  koI  v\j/i]XoTepas  a(l)r}Ke  Trepl  avTov 
(fxDi'ds).  This  statement  is  true,  though  many  modern  com- 
mentators, more  prejudiced  than  Photius,  have  attempted  to 
force  more  God-becoming  expressions  out  of  it.  Indeed  the 
way  in  which  Christ  is  spoken  of  is  one  of  the  most  striking 
peculiarities  of  the  letter.  But  we  shall  let  the  facts  speak 
for  themselves.  In  only  one  passage  is  He  called  God's  Son, 
and  that  when  the  writer  adduces  the  words,  "  Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  theel.^'  That  Clemens  regarded 
Christ  as  more  than  human  there  is  the  most  certain  evidence, 
for  he  describes  Him  as  the  reflection  or  radiance  of  God's 
greatness,  and  as  being  so  much  greater  than  the  angels  as  He 
has  inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they"^.  In  another 
place  He  is  spoken  of  as  the  Sceptre  of  God's  greatness ",  an 
expression  which  seems  to  mean  that  Christ  is  the  peculiar 
manifestation  of  the  regal  character,  the  power,  and  love  of 
God.     By  far  the  most  common  designation  is  that  of  Loi'd. 

He  is  Lord  of  the  Church,  and  accordingly  the  fact  answers 
to  our  expectation  when  we  see  one  church  writing  to  another 
speaking  continually  of  Christ  in  that  aspect  of  his  work  and 
character  which  their  relation  to  each  other  brings  out  most 
prominently.     They  say  to  each  other,  "  Let  us  reverence  the 


c.  3^.  "  <■.  i6. 


^  c.  56. 

f  ii.ia. 

B     CC.  .^0,    3:. 

''    C-  .lO- 

"  Biblioth. 

126,  p.  95 

:  Bekker. 

'  c.  36. 

II.]  CLEMENS    ROMAN  US.  125 

Lord  Jesus  Christ"/^  Several  doxolog-ies  occur  in  the  course 
of  the  letter.  These  some  have  believed  to  be  ascriptions  to 
Christ,  tmd  we  therefore  lay  them  before  the  reader  that  he 
may  judge.  The  first  is  found  at  the  conclusion  of  chapter  xx, 
which  we  have  already  translated,  and  to  which  we  now  refer 
the  reader.  The  second,  in  c.  4,  runs  thus :  "  This  blessedness 
fell  to  the  lot  of  those  who  were  selected  by  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  to  whom  be  glory  for  the  ages  of  the  ages. 
Amen.^^  Wotton  and  others  have  asserted  that  these  ascrip- 
tions of  honour  are  made  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  they  have  tried 
by  means  of  them  to  show  the  unti'uth  of  the  remark  of 
Photius.  We  cannot  think  the  passages  justify  Wotton.  If 
there  is  clear  evidence  in  the  letter  that  such  epithets  were 
applied  to  Jesus  Christ,  then  we  might  apply  these.  But  if 
there  is  not  (and  in  the  other  doxologies  there  is  a  marked 
difierence),  then  the  relative  must  be  taken  to  refer  to  God 
and  not  to  Christ.  Grammatically  it  may  apply  to  either. 
Generally  it  applies  to  the  nearest;  but  if  the  sense  require 
it,  there  is  no  reason  for  hesitating  to  apply  it  to  the  more 
distant  of  the  nouns.  The  other  two  doxologies  are  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  allseeing  God  *  ^  *  grant  faith,  fear,  ^  "^  "^ 
through  Jesus  Christ ;  through  whom  to  Him  be  glory  and 
greatness,  strength  and  honour,  now  and  for  ever.  AmenP.^' 
"  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you  and  with 
all  everywhere  who  are  called  by  God  and  through  Him, 
through  whom  to  Him  be  glory,  honour,  power,  strength, 
greatness,  an  eternal  throne,  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen.^^  In 
both  these  instances  the  ascription  of  praise  is  unquestionably 
to  God  through  Christ.  The  analogy  wotdd  lead  us  to  infer 
that  in  the  other  two  doxologies  the  words  through  Christ^ 
are  to  be  drawn  into  the  doxology,  according  to  a  not  uncom- 
mon Greek  idiom,  or  that  originally  the  u  was  really  before 
the  8ta,  though  in  the  single  manuscript  that  remains  this 
happens  not  to  be  the  case.  All  the  doxologies  w^ould  then 
be  in  marked  harmony  with  the  prevailing  presentation 
of  Christ's  relation  to  God,  namely,  that  of  the  Representative 

"  c.  21.  PC.  58. 


126  THE   AFOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

of  God,  and  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  Tliere  is  one 
other  passage  which  has  been  adduced  to  disprove  the  truth 
of  the  words  of  Photius.  It  occui's  in  the  second  chapter : 
"  Being"  content  with  the  journey-supplies  of  God,  and  giving 
careful  heed  to  his  words,  ye  received  them  into  your  inmost 
soul,  and  his  sufferings  were  before  your  eyes.^^  His  suffer- 
ings, according  to  this  interpretation,  are  the  sufferings  of 
God ;  but  God  the  Father  did  not  suffer ;  therefore  God  the 
Son  suffered.  And  here  therefore  Christ  is  represented  as 
God.  This  explanation  was  common  among  our  w^riters  of 
the  last  century,  but  modern  critics  have  given  it  up.  For  if 
the  words  are  to  be  taken  to  refer  to  God,  there  is  not  the 
least  doubt  that  Clemens  must  be  accused  of  Patripassianism. 
The  words  would  then  be  a  direct  statement  that  God  suffered. 
Dorner,  Bunsen,  Ekker,  and  many  others,  suppose  the  avrov 
to  be  indefinite,  and  its  exact  reference  to  Christ  is  to  be 
inferred  from  the  context.  Instances  of  this  indefinite  use 
of  avTov  occur  in  chapters  32,  34,  and  59.  It  seems  to  me 
more  likely  that  the  text  is  corrupt,  and  that  we  should 
read  fxadrnxaTa  '  instructions,'  instead  of  -nadrnxara,  as  Junius 
proposed.  The  change  of  M  into  IT  is  frequent  and  natural ^5, 
and  in  the  present  instance  the  upper  stroke  of  the  Pi  has 
entirely  vanished  from  the  MS.  This  is  also  the  case  with 
the  upper  strokes  in  many  of  the  Mus  of  the  Alexandrian 
Codex,  and  the  only  difference  between  the  IT  in  Yladi]^.aTa 
and  the  M  above  it  in  eorepyio-juerot  is  that  the  legs  of  the  /x 
are  farther  apart  than  those  of  the  -n.  The  sense  given  by 
[xaO-qfiara  is  unquestionably  more  suitable  to  the  context 
than  that  given  by  -nad-^fxaTa. 

There  are  several  expressions  in  the  epistle  from  wdiich 
somC^  have  inferred  that  Clemens  was  acquainted  in  some 
measure  with  the  so-called  Alexandrian  Logos-doctrine.  Thus 
Clemens  speaks,  or  seems  to  speak,  of  "the  all-virtuous 
Wisdom'''  as  a  personality^   (ovtcos  Ae'yei  7}  Travap^Toi  ao^ia)  ; 

>i  naeTjT^c  for  fiaQrtriiv  occurs  in  the  Letter  of  Ignatius  to  Polycarp.  c.  vii. 
One  codex  has  the  naOrjTfiv.     See  Dressel's  note,  p.  205,  note  3. 
■■  Lipaius,  p.  103.  •  c.  57. 


II.]  CLEMENS  ROM  ANUS.  m 

he  mentions  the  holy  Word  in  the  same  way  {(firjalv  yap 
6  ayios  Ao'yost)  ;  and  he  asserts  that  "God  put  together  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  greatness  {iv  Aoyo)  ttjs  /ueyaAco- 
avvris),  and  by  his  word  {iv  Ao'yo))  He  can  overturn  them." 
But  we  do  not  think  these  words  warrant  the  inference. 
They  contain  no  express  declaration  of  the  Logos-idea^  and 
we  hare  no  right  to  suppose  that  Clemens  applied  any  of 
these  terms  to  Christ.  If  he  had  formed  a  complete  syste- 
matic idea  of  Christ,  he  might  then  have  seen  the  necessity 
of  identif}-ing*  Christ  with  the  Wisdom;  but  we  must  not 
assume  that  he  did  what  he  might  have  done  ^. 

Of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  Christ  not  much  is  said.  His 
descent  from  Jacob  is  referred  toy.  Hilgenfeld  has  by  a 
constrained  interpretation  of  the  passage  fancied  that  Clemens 
represents  Christ  as  descended  from  the  Levitesz,  and  not 
from  Judah.  Clemens  quotes  some  of  Christ's  words.  His 
death  and  his  resurrection  are  both  mentioned.  Everything 
that  Chi-ist  does.  He  does  in  the  consequence  of  the  will  of 
God.  He  was  sent  into  the  world  by  God :  "  Christ  was 
sent  out  from  God,  and  the  apostles  from  Christ;  both 
missions  took  place  orderly  in  consequence  of  a  volition  of 
God  a."  He  is  said  to  have  been  selected  by  God''.  The 
resurrection  of  Christ  was  also  the  work  of  God,  and  it  is 
declared  to  be  the  firstfruits  of  the  coming  resurrection  *=. 

We  have  no  full  exposition  in  Clemens  of  the  work  of 
Christ.  INIost  of  the  statements  with  regard  to  Christ's 
death  are  indefinite.  A  unique  and  marvellous  power  is  evi- 
dently ascribed  to  it;  but  the  writer  never  speculates  on 
the  mode  in  which  the  results  flowed  from  the  death.  In 
one  passage  the  blood  of  Christ  is  looked  on  as  afibrding 

*  c.  13,  56,  »  c.  27. 

*  This  matter  necessarily  lies  among  uncertainties.  Domer  assumes  that 
Clemens  must  have  known  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  from  this  aquaint- 
ance  infers  that  he  knew  the  logos-doctrine.  See  the  long  note  on  c.  27  in 
Domer's  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  142.  Baur  also  refers  the  words  to 
Christ,  though  he  remarks  that  in  Clemens's  words  is  contained  no  deter- 
mined dogmatic  meaning.     (Das  Christenthum,  p.  329.) 

y  c.  32.  '  Apost.  Vjiter,  p.  65,  note.  »  c.  42. 

^  c.  58.  «  c.  24. 


128  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.       [Chap. 

to  men  an  opportunity  of  cliang-ing  their  minds,  and  God 
is  said  to  regard  it  as  valuable  on  account  of  this  service. 
"  Let  ns  look  steadfastly  to  the  hlood  of  Christ,  and  consider 
how  2)recious  it  is  in  the  sight  of  God,  because,  having-  been 
poured  out  on  account  of  our  salvation,  it  has  presented  to 
all  the  world  the  favour  of  a  change  of  mind  (/lierai-ota)  ^." 
Clemens  does  not  state  here  how  the  blood  of  Christ  brought 
the  grace  of  a  change  of  mind,  nor  is  the  slightest  mention 
of  satisfaction  in  it,  as  Bull  has  fancied.  On  the  contrary, 
the  attention  is  here  directed  solely  to  the  moral  effects  of 
Christ^s  death;  to  its  putting  within  the  reach  of  men  a 
power  which  can  change  their  hearts  from  the  love  of  evil 
to  the  love  of  good.  And  indeed  the  emphasis  seems  to 
lie  on  the  words  '  to  the  whole  world,^  for  the  writer  goes 
on  to  state  how  God  had  in  former  generations  given  room 
for  a  change  of  mind  to  those  who  wished  to  return  to  Him. 

Ofteuer  than  once  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  for  us  :  "  Let 
us  reverence  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  blood  was  given 
for  us  6 ;"  "  Jesus  Christ  our  salvation  ^  ■"  "  On  account  of 
the  love  which  He  had  to  us,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  gave  his 
blood  for  us  by  the  will  of  God,  even  flesh  for  our  flesh  and 
soul  for  our  souls  S.^^  This  latter  passage  has  been  insisted 
on  by  some  as  expressive  of  the  vicarious  suflerings  of 
Christ  ^1 ;  and  some^  have  regarded  it  only  as  an  approxi- 
mation to  that  doctrine.  Ritschl  on  the  other  hand,  speaking 
generally  of  Clemens^s  statements  of  the  death  of  Christ,  says 
that  Clemens  looks  on  it  "as  a  moral  act  of  patience  and 
humility,  and  assigns  a  univ'ersal  meaning  to  it  only  as  an 
exaiuple  ^"  Both  parties  seem  to  me  wrong :  Ritschl  un- 
questionably so.  The  very  way  in  which  Clemens  mentions 
the  death  of  Christ  shows  that  he  attached  a  mysterious 
efficacy  to  it ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  he  does  not  attempt 
to  explain  the  mystery.  He  simply  says  that  the  effect  of 
Christ^s  death  was  to  benefit  our  flesh  and  our  souls :     He 

*  c.  7.  «  c.  II.  '  c.  36.  s  c.  46. 

'^  Dorner,  Lehi-e,  i.  138.      Lechler  :  second  ed.  p.  480.  '  Lipsius,  p.  82. 

''  P.  288  :  stated  in  slightly  different  terms  in  the  second  edition,  p.  a8i. 


II.]  CLEMKXS    ROMAXUS.  129 

gave  up  his  own  body  for  our  sakes  {vii'kp  iifxwv),  that  we 
might  have  a  glorious  resurrection;  and  He  gave  up  his 
own  life  or  soul,  that  we  might  have  life  in  Him.  It  is  a 
statement  of  facts,  not  of  explanations. 

Nor  is  there  any  theory  of  redemption  in  the  sentence, 
"  They  moreover  gave  her  a  sign,  asking  her  to  hang  a 
scarlet  rope  out  of  her  own  house,  thereby  making  it  evident 
beforehand  that  there  would  be  ransoming  through  the  blood 
of  the  Lord  to  all  who  put  their  faith  and  hope  in  God  K"  For 
the  ransoming  here  is  not  a  thing  accomplished,  but  prospec- 
tive. And  the  meaning  plainly  is,  that  Rahab^s  sign  was  a 
pre-intimation  that  those  who  put  their  trust  in  God  \vill  be 
completely  freed  from  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin  through 
the  blood  of  Christ.  How  the  blood  of  Chi'ist  is  to  accomplish 
this  complete  emancipation,  Clemens  does  not  say.  These  are 
all  the  references  in  Clemens  to  the  death  or  blood  of  Christ ; 
but  as  he  applies  some  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  to  Christ, 
we  may  regard  him  as  agreeing  entirely  with  the  sentiments 
therein  expressed.  These  verses,  taken  from  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  prove  conclusively  that  Christ  suffered  for 
us,  that  it  was  on  account  of  our  sins  that  He  was  afflicted. 

"  He  bears  our  sins,  and  is  in  pangs  for  us He  Himself 

was  wounded  on  account  of  our  sins,  and  was  afflicted  on 
account  of  our   iniquities.     The  chastisement  of  our   peace 

was    upon    Him ;    by  his  stripes  we  were   healed The 

Lord   delivered    Him    up    on  account  of  our  sins He 

Himself  will  carry  away  their  sins He  Himself  carried 

away  the  sins  of  many,  and  on  account  of  their  sins  He 
was  delivered  up"».^^ 

As  little  is  said  of  the  death  of  Christ,  so  little  is  said  of 
his  life  and  work.  Closeness  of  union  with  Christ  is  con- 
tinually implied  and  inculcated.  The  children  of  Christians 
are  to  be  instructed  in  Christ".  Christians  are  called  through 
God's  will  in  Christ  Jesus o.  Our  whole  body  is  to  be 
preserved  in  Christ  Jesus  P.  Mention  is  made  of  piety  in 
Christi,  love  in  Christ ■■,  righteousness  which  is  in  Christy 


'    C.    12. 

™  c. 

16. 

»    C.    21. 

"  c.  32 

P  0.  38. 

■«  c. 

I. 

'  c.  49. 

•  c.  48. 

VOL.  I. 

K 

130  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

and  living-  in  Chrisl'.  The  benefits  which  Christ  works  for 
us  are  thus  spoken  of :  We  are  called  and  made  holy  in 
God's  will  throug-h  Christ".  Through  Him  jieace  is  mul- 
tiplied to  the  churches".  We  are  chosen  through  Christ  b}' 
God  for  an  especial  peopley.  Through  Him  we  look  up 
into  the  heights  of  heaven,  the  eyes  of  our  hearts  are  opened, 
and  our  darkness  vanishes.  Through  Him  the  Lord  has 
wished  us  to  taste  immortal  knowledge^.  He  is  our  sal- 
vation, the  defender  and  helper  of  our  weakness",  the  high 
priest  of  our  offerings^.  Through  Him  God  gives  us  faith, 
fear,  peace,  patience,  longsuffering,  self-restraint,  chastity, 
and  sobriety*^.  He  is  also  our  model  (vTroypa/x/xo'v) '',  and  is 
adduced  especially  as  a  model  of  lowliness  of  mind,  in  a 
passage  similar  to  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ii.  6. 
"  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  sceptre  of  God's  greatness,  came 
not  in  the  pomp  of  vainglory  or  haughtiness,  although  He 
might  have  done  so,  but  humbly."  And  his  death  seems 
also  to  be  referred  to  as  an  instance  of  obedience  to  the  divine 
will".  Especial  stress  is  also  laid  on  our  listening  to  his 
words *^.  Christ  is  thus  represented  as  a  teacher,  as  a  dis- 
penser of  God's  blessings,  and  as  a  model.  Christians  are 
said  to  be  members  of  Christ,  to  be  the  flock  of  Christ  S,  and 
Christ  is  said  to  belong  to  those  who  think  humbly  of 
themselves^. 

Of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  Clemens  makes  no  direct 
mention,  but  he  quotes  a  passage  of  Scripture  which  he  would 
most  probably  refer  to  Christ,  though  he  might  also  have 
applied  it  to  God :  "  He  will  come  quickly,  and  will  not 
tarry,  and  suddenly  will  come  the  Lord  into  his  shrine,  even 
the  Holy  One  whom  ye  look  for'." 

t  c.  47.  "  c.  I.  «  ibid.  y  c   58.  '  c.  36. 

*  ibid.  *>  c.  36  and  58.  <=  c.  58.  ''  c.  16. 

*  Comp.  c.  49,  7,  and  2 1 .  Tlie  Corinthians  are  blamed  for  not  living  according 
to  what  is  becoming  to  Christ ;  but  the  reading  XpicT'f  has  been  suspected,  and 
Junius  proposed  Xpianavq),  c.  3. 

'  c.  13  and  46.  s  c.  54.  *>  c.  16. 

'  c.  23.  Clemens's  quotation  is  not  in  the  exact  words.  See  Hah.  ii.  3. 
Mai.  iii.  I. 


II.]  CLEMEXS   llOMAXCS.  131 

27te  lloly  Spirit. — The  Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of  in  two  con- 
nections, either  as  poured  out  on  Christians,  or  as  speaking 
in  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  first  case  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  imag-iue  that  Clemens  conceived  the  Holy 
Spirit  a  person,  and  in  the  second  it  is  as  impossible  to 
imagine  that  he  did  not  so  look  upon  Him.  "  There  was  a 
full  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  {-nvdvuaTos  ayCov  without 
the  article)  upon  all'',"  can  only  mean  that  there  was  some  gift 
or  grace  richly  distributed  among  all.  It  may  be  used,  and 
most  likely  is  used,  for  that  gift  or  those  gifts  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  grant ;  but  as  Clemens  never  says  that 
He  does  grant  them,  we  cannot  determine  from  his  writings 
what  was  his  belief  on  this  point.  In  the  statement  that  the 
apostles  preached  "with  the  full  assurance  of  the  Holy  Spirit^," 
it  is  difficidt  to  determine  whether  the  writer  means  a  full 
assurance  of 'the  efficacy  of  the  proclamation  produced  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  a  fvdl  assurance  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
be  largely  poured  out  on  their  hearers,  or  a  full  assurance 
resulting  from  a  large  measure  of  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  out 
on  them.  The  passag'cs  which  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
speaking  through  the  prophets  we  shall  discuss  hereafter. 

TAe  Trinifij. — There  is  only  one  })assage  in  which  God, 
Christ,  and  the  Spirit,  are  placed  together.  It  runs  thus  : 
"  Have  we  not  one  God,  and  one  Christ ;  and  is  there  not  one 
Spirit  of  grace  which  has  been  poured  out  upon  us,  and  one 
calling  in  Christ^?" 

Angels. — Angels  are  mentioned  twice  :  in  a  passage  already 
quoted  as  having  a  name  inferior  to  Christ's ;  and  in  another 
he  says,  "  Let  us  consider  the  whole  multitude  of  angels,  how 
standing  near  they  attend  on  his  will"!."  They  are  also  intro- 
duced in  a  passage  of  Scripture  :  "  God  placed  the  boundaries 
of  the  nations  according  to  the  number  of  the  angels  of 
God°." 

''    C.  2.  '   C.  42.  ""    C.  46.  "    C.  34. 

°  c.  29.  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint  in  Deut.  sxxii.  8.  The 
reading  was  known  to  Philo  (De  Plantat.  Noe,  §  14.  p.  338),  and  is  discussed 
by  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  c.  131.  See  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Viiter. 
p.  64,  note. 

K   I 


132  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

The  Devil  is  not  once  mentioned,  hut  lie  was  probably 
referred  to  in  a  passag-e  which  has  been  thus  restored  :  "  What 
sins  we  committed  tliroiig-h  some  sug-g-estion  of  the  Ad- 
versary P/^  If  Irenanis's  descri])tion  of  the  teaching  of  the 
letter  is  correct,  mention  must  have  been  made  of  the  Devil 
in  the  part  that  is  lost.  He  thus  sums  up  the  teaching  of  the 
letter  :  "  It  announced  one  God,  omnipotent,  maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  fashioner  of  man,  who  brought  on  the  flood,  and 
called  Abraham,  who  led  the  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
who  spoke  to  INIoses,  who  arranged  the  law  and  sent  the 
prophets,  who  prepared  fire  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels q." 

Man:  his  original  state. — Nothing  is  said  of  original  sin, 
or  of  the  state  of  man  before  conversion.  The  only  remark 
that  has  any  reference  to  the  commencement  of  sin  is  that 
death  came  into  the  world  through  envy"^;  but  here  Clemens 
evidently  refers  to  the  fii'st  occasion  of  death,  the  jealousy 
between  Cain  and  Abel. 

Salvation. — Clemens's  answer  to  the  question,  how  a  man 
is  saved,  is  various  in  form,  but  fundamentally  the  same. 
Salvation  is,  according  to  his  idea,  dependent  on  good  works. 
A  holy  life  is  salvation,  or  at  least  the  reason  of  salvation ;  but 
as  this  holy  life  may  be  viewed  in  its  sources  as  well  as  in 
its  outward  manifestations,  faith  and  love  are  also  spoken  of 
as  the  causes  of  salvation,  of  the  righteousness  and  perfection 
of  the  Christian.  At  the  same  time,  as  already  mentioned, 
God  is  always  looked  on  as  the  source  of  moral  excellence. 
Though  Christ  is  once  referred  to  as  the  Being  in  whom  our 
salvation  is  found*,  yet  He  is  never  referred  to  as  directly 
producing  holiness ;  but,  as  we  have  already  seen,  his  life  and 
his  death  were  both  regarded  as  means  by  which  man  was  to 
be  brought  to  God.  Accordingly  the  gate  of  righteousness 
through  which  the  holy  enter  is  said  to  be  in  Christ  *. 

We  may  aiTangc  what  Clemens  says  on  the  subject  of 
salvation  in  three  heads:  i.  The  effects  of  the  fear  of  God 
and  obedience  to  his  will.      2.  Faith.      3.  Love. 

p  c.  51.         1  Contra  Haer.  lib.  Lii.  c,  iii.  ^,.         ^  c.  3.  '  c.  36.  '  c.  48. 


II.]  CLEMEXS    ROMAN  US.  1.33 

1.  "  The  fear  of  God,"  he  says,  "saves  all  who  live  holily 
in  it  with  pure  mind  "."  "  Blessed  are  we,  beloved,  if  we 
do  God^s  eommandmeuts  in  the  concord  of  love,  that  onr 
sins  may  be  forgnven  iis  throug-h  love^'." 

2.  Faith  in  Christ  is  only  once  mentioned"  and  in  a  peculiar 
sense.  It  means  a  belief  that  Christ  spoke  throug-h  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  Mention  is  several  times 
made  of  confidence  in  God''  (Triorts  avrov)  ;  and  once  the 
phrase  occurs,  "those  who  trust  and  hope  in  God."  The 
remarks  of  Clemens  refer  therefore  entirely  to  faith  in  God. 
The  most  striking  passag-e  with  regard  to  this  faith  is  in 
chapter  xxxii.  "  We,"  he  says,  "  are  declared  and  made  rig-h- 
teous,  not  b}'  means  of  ourselves,  nor  through  our  own  wisdom 
or  understanding'  or  piety  or  works  which  we  did  in  holiness 
of  heart,  but  through  faith.  Through  which  faith  Almighty 
God  has  made  and  declared  all  men  righteous  from  the  begin- 
ing."  We  have  a  particular  instance  of  the  same  truth  when 
he  says  that  it  was  through  this  confidence  in  God  that  Abraham 
wrought  righteousness  and  truth  v.  This  faith  or  confidence 
(77i(TTt?)  is  an  abiding  continuous  state  of  mind,  in  which  the 
soul  trusts  all  the  promises  of  God,  hopes  in  Him,  and  obeys 
his  commandments.  The  transient  action  of  this  faith  seems 
to  be  called  ireTTo (Orient  by  Clemens.  Thus  we  have  the 
■n^TtoiOrjcns  TTiareoos  aya6f]s,  '  the  exercise  of  a  good  confi- 
dence /  and  TTioTts  kv  7re7rot0?;cret,  '  faith  in  activity.^  Some 
have  thought  that  Clemens  in  some  measure  contradicts 
himself  when  he  in  another  passage  exhorts  the  Corinthians 
to  clothe  themselves  with  concord,  "  being  proved  to  be 
righteous  by  deeds,  not  by  words  =^."  But  the  declaration  or 
manifestation  of  righteousness  here  is  not  towards  God,  but 
towards  men,  and  therefore  the  statement  has  no  theological 
meaning ;  and  the  contrast  is  not  between  faith  and  works, 


1  c.  21.  '  c.  50.  *  c.  22. 

"  c.   3.   27.    35.  In  35  the  expression  is,  rj  Staroia  t)huiv  iritrTfws  irphs  rlv 

Qi6v,  which  some  have  been  inclined  to  change,  but  which  Lipsius  ju.stly 
retains. 

y  c.  31.  '  c.  30. 


I ;J I  TJI E  APOSTOLI CA L  FA  Til E liS.  [Chap. 

but  between  words  and  works.  Even  if  the  statement  had 
been  made  in  a  theological  j)oint  of  view,  there  would  have 
been  no  contradiction.  Clemens  evidently  regarded  faith  as 
the  secret  spring-  and  true  test  of  righteousness,  and  conse- 
quently thought  of  it  always  as  manifcbted  by  good  deeds. 
In  one  passage  he  directly  joins  faith  and  good  works,  as 
being  of  identical  effect.  We  shall  obtain  God^s  ])romises,  he 
says,  if  the  disposition  of  our  faith  to  God  be  fixed,  if  we 
accomplish  what  is  agreeable  to  his  blameless  will,  and  follow 
the  way  of  truth ».  In  like  manner  we  find  faith  combined 
^^^th  hospitality  :  "  Raliab  was  saved  on  account  of  her 
faith  and  hospitality^ ;"  and,  as  if  corresponding  to  this, 
it  is  said  that  Lot  was  saved  on  account  of  hi:>  hospitality 
and  piety  <=. 

3.  Love  is  referred  to  most  frequently  and  enlarged  on 
by  Clemens.  And  here  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  speaks 
of  '  love  in  Christ !  "  Let  him  that  has  love  in  Christ, 
keep  the  commands  of  Christ^'."  We  have  already  seen 
that  love  is  the  means  through  which  we  obtain  forgiveness 
of  sins  in  conjunction  with  good  works'^.  It  is  moreover 
said  that  love  joins  us  to  God.  But  especial  stress  is  laid 
on  love  as  the  means  of  perfecting  the  Christian :  "  All  the 
elect  of  God  were  perfected  in  love*" ;"  and  the  same  expression 
occurs  again  = . 

Those  who  are  thus  saved  are  called  brethren,  the  elect 
of  God'i.  The  blessedness  of  having  sins  forgiven  falls  only 
to  those  "  who  have  been  selected  by  God  through  Jesus 
Chrisfi."  "  AVho  is  fit  to  be  found  in  love  except  those  whom 
God  regards  worthy'^  ?"  There  can  be  no  doubt  from  such 
passages  that  Clemens  regarded  the  selection  of  Christians 
from  the  rest  of  the  world  as  entirely  dependent  on  the  will 
of  God.  And  he  went  farther  than  this ;  for  he  says  that  God 
"  prepared  his  benefits  before  we  were  born  ^."  In  harmony 
with  this  idea  the  Roman  church  speaks  of  itself  and  the 
Corinthian  church  as  part  of  this  selection"^. 

»  c    },f,.  *"  c.  1  2.  "^  c.  ir.  ''  c.  49.  '  c.  50.  '  c.  49. 

!■  c.  50.  •'  c.  I,  46.     '  c.  50.  ''  c.  50.  '  c.  3R.  ■"  c.  29.  30. 


II.]  CLKMEy:S    liOMASUS.  13') 

Tlie  conduct  of  Christians  thus  dependent  on  God  oug-ht 
to  be  characterised  by  continual  reicrcnce  to  Him.  They  obey 
God  ".  They  love  God  as  the  merciful  and  beneficent  Father". 
They  do  all  things  in  the  fear  of  God  P.  They  are  bound  to 
examiue  what  is  good  and  well-pleasing*  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  Him  that  made  them'!.  Their  boast  and  confidence 
is  in  God"".  They  are  to  seek  their  praise  in  God".  They 
are  to  confess  their  sins  to  God,  and  to  fall  down  before  the 
Lord  (deo-TToVjj),  and  with  tears  to  entreat  Him  to  be  mer- 
cifully reconciled  to  them,  and  to  restore  them  to  their  holy 
and  chaste  life  of  brotherly  love*.  In  one  word,  their  whole 
life  is  said  to  be  a  life  according  to  the  directions  of  God 
(TToAtreta  tov  Qeov)^. 

Of  the  relation  of  Christians  to  Christ  comparativel}^  little 
is  said.  They  are  said  to  be  members  of  Him;  and  evil 
speakings  are  brought  upon  his  name  when  Christians 
behave  foolishly  and  sinfully".  Christians  are  also  described 
as  having  come  under  the  yoke  of  his  favour  through 
Him  y. 

T/ie  Church.  —  Christians  are  spoken  of  as  members  of 
each  other,  and  as  bound  to  help  each  other.  Throughout 
the  whole  epistle  the  unity  of  a  church  of  Christ  is  brought 
prominently  forward  2.  A  church  is  not  a  certain  number 
of  bishops  or  presbyters,  but  a  company  of  those  selected  by 
God.  Each  is  to  be  subject  to  his  neighbour ;  and  the  mode 
of  this  subjection  is  to  be  determined  by  the  gift  God  has 
given  him.  If  he  is  rich,  he  is  to  help  the  j)Oor;  if  he  is 
strong,  he  is  to  help  the  weak ;  and  so  on ;  and  thus  the  whole 
body  is  to  be  saved  in  Christ  =*.  The  church  is  not  to  be 
an  irregidar  anarchical  association.  It  is  to  have  its  rulers, 
even  as  an  army  has  ;  to  act  orderly  and  obediently,  with 

"  c.  34.  "  c.  29.  P  c.  2.  '1  c.  7.  '  c.  34. 

«'c.  30.  »  c.  48.  "  c.  54;  cf.  22.  "  c.  47. 

>  c.  16.  Most  probably  the  reiuling  is  corrupt,  and  early  editions  omitted 
'  through  him.'  Tlie  probable  meaning  is,  that  Christians  receive  God's  favour 
through  Christ ;  but  as  it  stands,  the  passage  means  that  they  receive  Christ's 
favour  through  Christ. 

'  c.  37.  •■'  c.  38. 


i;{(i  TJIE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

humility  and  respect  for  each  other  ^'.  And  so  intimate  was 
the  concern  which  these  Christians  felt  in  each  other,  that 
they  hesitated  not  to  admonish  each  other  when  necessary — 
a  piece  of  disag-reeable  duty  which  they  did  not  hand  over 
to  their  presidents,  "The  admonition/^  says  Clemens,  in 
speaking-  of  God  chastising  his  children,  "  which  we  make 
to  one  another  is  g-ood  and  exceeding-ly  useful,  for  it  joins 
us  to  the  Avill  of  God^"  The  idea  of  the  Church  in  this 
epistle  is  that  of  an  assemblage  composed  of  members  of 
equal  rights  and  privileges,  all  of  whom  are  essential  to  each 
other  as  the  parts  of  the  body  to  the  body,  but  some  of 
whom,  being  more  highly  gifted,  are  to  direct  the  less 
intelligent  and  the  less  gifted^.  The  letter  itself  is  a  letter 
from  a  church  to  a  church.  The  church  that  writes  does 
not  say  one  word  with  regard  to  its  rulers.  The  leaders  of 
the  church  to  which  the  letter  is  addressed  are  frequently 
mentioned,  but  they  are  spoken  of  in  such  a  way  that  the 
right  of  the  church  itself  to  direct  its  own  affairs  is  recog- 
nised. Some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Corinthian  church  are 
ill  treated  by  a  few  of  the  members,  and  divisions  arise.  The 
Roman  church  writes  to  the  Corinthians  to  treat  them 
better,  urging  them  to  do  so  by  the  most  powerful  arguments 
and  appeals.  It  does  not  dictate  to  them  in  any  way.  It 
does  not  mention  a  bishop  of  the  Corinthian  church,  much 
less  appeal  to  him  to  settle  the  dispute.  It  recognises  no 
body  of  men  as  ha^'ing  a  right  to  control  the  church. 
It  simply  appeals  to  the  chiu'ch,  the  elect  of  God.  It  is 
to  be  observed  too  that  there  is  onl}'  one  church  in  Rome 
and  one  in  Corinth.  How  many  members  composed  the  one 
or  the  other,  how  they  met,  and  a  vast  number  of  similar 
questions,  are  inquiries  which  the  letter  furnishes  us  with  no 
means  of  answering. 

The  office-bearers  of  the  church  are  particularly  enume- 
rated, and  the  mode  of  their  appointment  is  clearly  indicated. 
"  The  apostles,^^  he  says,  "  went  forth  proclaiming  the  good 
news  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  about  to  come.     Preaching 

*"  c.  37.  "^  c.  56.  ''  c.  37. 


II.]  CLEMENS  ROMANUS.  VM 

therefore  iu  various  countries  and  cities,  they  appointed  their 
tirstlruits,  having'  tested  them  by  the  Spirit,  to  be  overseers 
(bishops)  and  servants  (deacons)  of  those  who  were  to  be- 
lieve 6. "  We  have  in  this  passag-e  the  statement  that  there 
were  overseers  and  servants  in  the  churches,  and  that  they 
were  appointed  by  the  apostles.  This  statement  is  given  at 
greater  length  in  another  chapter  :  "  Our  apostles  also  knew 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  would  be  strife  on 
account f  of  the  oversig-ht.  For  this  reason  then  the  apostles, 
having  received  full  foreknowledg-e,  appointed  those  already 
mentioned,  [the  overseers  and  servants,]  and  afterwards  made 
an  addition  to  them,  in  order  that  if  they  should  fall  asleep 
other  approved  men  might  succeed  them  in  their  service. 
Those  then  that  were  appointed  by  them  [the  apostles],  or 
afterwards  by  other  well  known  men,  the  whole  church  g'iving 
their  consent,  and  who  have  served  the  flock  of  Christ  blame- 
lessly, with  humility,  peacefulness,  and  generosity,  who  have 
also  been  borne  witness  to  for  a  long  time  by  all ;  these  men  we 
are  of  opinion  cannot  be  justly  dismissed  from  the  service  S.^^ 

Before  stating  all  that  is  implied  in  these  sentences,  we 
have  to  deal  with  a  clause  in  it  which  has  been  tortured 
in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  The  words  are :  koL  fxeTa^v 
k-nLVo\ii]v  bihuiKaoiv  ottw?,  kav  KOinrjOcacnv,  biabe^wvTai  erepoi 
biboKLnaajxivoi  6,vbpes  ti]v  XeaovpyCav  avrSiv.  The  stone  of 
offence  in  this  sentence  is  the  word  iTTivofirj.  It  occurs  rarely 
in  Greek ;  and  its  only  senses  are,  first,  the  rapid  spreading 
of  anything,  such  as  fire  or  poison ;  and  second,  a  bandage 
used  by  physicians  in  tying  up  wounds  ^.  Neither  of  these 
meanings  is  suitable  to  the  passage  before  us;  and  therefore 
any  attempt  to  build  any  peculiar  theory  on  the  word  is 
pure  conjecture.  The  translation  which  I  have  given  has 
not  the  slightest  authority  in  itself.     The  word  k-nLvo\vf},  like 

"  c.  42. 

f  4ir\  Tov  ovofuxTos  some  translate  '  in  regard  to  the  dignity  of  overseers.' 
So  Bunsen,  and  many  before  him.     See  Jacobson's  note.  ^  c.  44. 

•*  See  Liddell  and  Scott  for  the  two  passages  in  which  the  first  meaning 
occurs ;  the  second  meaning  is  given  by  Lipsius,  but  he  adds  merely  the  name 
of  Galen,  not  the  passage  :   Disq.  p.  20. 


138  THE   AI'O^TOLICAL    FAT  HE  lis.  [Cii.vr. 

fTnv(ixT](ns,  may  be  supposed  capable  of  tlie  meaning-  of  '  a  dis- 
tribution ;'  and  I  conjecture  that  Clemens  means  that  the 
apostles  made  a  second  choice  of  men,  in  order  that  if  the  first 
should  die  there  would  be  others  ready  to  take  their  place. 
Others  have  <^ven  to  the  word  the  meaning  of 'an  additional 
law/  '  a  precept  added  to  fonner  laws  •/  and  the  word  has 
been  also  variously  altered  to  suit  this  meaning.  But  what- 
ever meaning  be  attached  to  it,  no  weight  can  be  assigned 
to  any  inferences  drawn  from  that  meaning.  Yet  this  word 
occupies  a  fundamental  position  in  Rothe's  exposition  of  the 
government  of  the  church  at  this  period.  He  found  iirivoixoL- 
KKr}pov6ixoi  in  Hesychius,  and  from  this  he  forces  out  the 
meaning  of  a  "  testamentary  direction."  And  then  with  this 
sense  he  forces  the  sentence  to  declare  that  "  the  apostles  gave 
a  testamentary  direction,  in  order  that  if  they  should  die 
other  justly  esteemed  men  should  succeed  to  their  apostolic 
functions'."  He  felt  himself  compelled  not  merely  to  in- 
troduce a  new  meaning  to  eViyo/zT/,  but  to  change  the  whole 
turn  of  the  sentence.  For  the  plain  sense  will  admit  only 
the  ■npoeipnixivoi.  as  the  nominative  to  KOi/iJj^dJo-ir*',  a  point 
rendered  incontestable  by  Clemens's  insertion  of  Irepoi  here. 
Bunsen  proposed  eTrijixoi'?;^ ',  a  conjecture  in  which  he  was 
anticipated  by  Turner,  and  supposes  that  what  is  here  said 
is,  that  the  apostles  appointed  the  overseers  for  life,  that  the 
term  of  the  office  of  oversight  was  to  cease  only  with  life. 
This  interpretation  is  equally  groundless  as  Bothers,  though 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  main  tendency  of  the  epistle. 

From  the  important  passage  which  we  have  quoted  at 
length,  we  learn  that  the  overseers  and  sei-vants  were  ap- 
pointed by  apostles  or  by  other  well  known  men,  that  the 
consent  of  the  whole  church  to  the  appointment  of  its  ser- 
vants was  in  some  wa}-  or  other  ascertained,  and  that  a  church 
claimed  the  right  of  expelling  a  servant  if  it  saw  fit.     On  this 

"'  Anfange,  p.  3S9. 

••  See   a    full    refutation    nf    Rothe    in    Baur,    Ursprung    des    Episkopats 

p.  53  ff- 

'  Bunsen  ;  Ignatius  von  Antiochien  uud  seine  Zeit,  p.  9S. 


J  I.]  CLEMKy.s    nuMAXUS.  l.'J!) 

ufc-asiiuu  the  Roman  church  demurrf  to  the  Corinthian  church 
using-  this  right,  because  they  would  act  unjustly  it"  tliey  were 
to  expel  well-tried  men. 

The  following  sentences  of  the  same  chapter  prove  the 
identity  of  the  overseers  and  elders.  "  It  will  be  no  small 
sin  in  lis  if  we  remove  from  the  oversig'ht  those  who  have 
offered  their  g-ifts  blamelessly  and  holily.  Blessed  are  those 
elders  who,  having  journeyed  through  life  before,  had  a  fruit- 
ful and  perfect  dissolution ;  for  they  fear  not  lest  any  one 
should  remove  them  from  the  place  appointed  to  them™." 
Here  we  have  proof  as  clear  as  we  could  wish  that  the  elders 
were  included  among  the  overseers.  The  Roman  letter  im- 
plies that  the  Corinthians  were  intending  to  remove  some, 
not  one,  from  the  oversig'ht.  The  writer  thinks  of  those  who 
had  had  this  service  in  the  church  before,  and  he  naturally 
exclaims,  "  Blessed  are  they  who  are  g-one  V  This  would  be 
an  absurd  exclamation  if  the  persons  called  ^blessed'  did  not 
occupy  the  same  position  as  those  who  were  on  earth  in  the 
midst  of  trouble.  Further  proof  is  at  hand.  In  the  passage 
now  quoted,  the  sin  which  the  Corinthian  church  is  sup^^osed 
to  be  in  danger  of  committing  is  the  expulsion  of  holy  men 
from  their  oversight.  Elsewhere  these  same  men  are  called 
'  elders.'  "  A  most  disgraceful  report  is  it  that  the  ancient 
chm-ch  of  the  Corinthians  should  revolt  against  the  elders  on 
account  of  one  or  two  persons  Q."  These  expressions  do  not 
force  us  to  conclude  the  absolute  identity  of  overseers  and 
elders,  but  we  are  left  to  one  of  two  conclusions  :  either 
elders  and  overseers  were  different  names  of  the  same  office ; 
or  all  elders  were  overseers,  though  all  overseers  were  not 
necessarily  elders.  Their  exact  identity  however  is  rendered 
extremely  likely  b}-  the  circumstance  that  only  overseers  and 
servants  were  formerly  mentioned  as  the  office-bearers  of  the 
churches.  Now  as  the  elders  are  declared  to  be  office-bearers 
too,  it  is  plain  that  the  term  either  included  both  overseers 
and  servants,  or  we  must  restrict  it  to  one  of  them.  We  have 
no  reason   for  applying  it  to  the  servants,  and  consecpiently 

">  c.  4|.  "  c.  47. 


140  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Cii.vr. 

we  must  apply  it  to  the  overseers  and  tlieni  alone.  There  is 
one  passag-e  that  seems  to  point  out  the  elders  as  the  only 
servants  :  "  Only  let  the  flock  of"  Christ  be  at  peace  with  the 
appointed  elders  °/^  The  omission  of  the  servants  however 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  circumstances  that  the  occasion 
of  this  letter  was  a  revolt  against  elders,  and  that  the  deacons 
mig-ht  perhaps  more  appropriately  go  with  the  flock,  as  they 
were  not  guides  of  the  flock. 

If  we  intei*pret  the  words  which  Clemens  uses  in  regard  to 
the  Jewish  Chm*ch  as  having  a  reference  to  the  Christian 
Church,  we  get  the  same  division  of  offices.  He  says  :  "  To 
the  high  priest  his  own  services  are  given,  and  to  the  priests 
their  own  place  has  been  assigned,  and  on  the  LcAntes  their 
own  services  ai*e  obligatory ;  the  layman  is  bound  by  laic 
precepts."  As  Clemens  gives  us  no  key  to  the  understanding 
of  this  passage,  unless  we  accept  his  exposition  of  the  oflSces 
of  overseer  and  deacon  as  such,  we  can  derive  no  authority 
from  this  passage  for  any  theory.  All  that  we  have  to  do  is 
to  show  that  it  harmonises ;  and  if  wo  regard  Christ  as  the 
High  Priest  of  the  Christian  Church,  w^hich  Clemens  himself 
calls  Him,  then  the  overseers  or  elders  correspond  to  the 
priests,  and  the  deacons  to  the  Levites. 

We  have  still  to  consider  two  passages  which  have  been 
adduced  as  favouring  the  notion  that  there  were  three  orders 
in  the  church — bishop  or  overseer,  presbyters  or  elders,  and 
deacons.  The  two  passages  are  so  alike  that  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  quote  only  one  of  them  :  "  Let  us  respect  those  who  rule 
over  us  (tovs  Trpo-qyovixevovs  i^J-o^v),  let  us  honour  our  elders,  let 
us  instruct  the  young  men  with  the  instruction  of  the  fear  of 

God,  let  us  dii'cct  our  wives  into  what  is  good Let  yom- 

children  have  a  share  of  the  instruction  which  is  in  Christ  P." 
Here  a  single  glance  will  show  that  those  "who  rule  over  us" 
[ijyoviJLii'oi  in  the  other  chapter,  ch.  i.)  are  the  office-bearers 
of  the  chiirch;  the  elders  are  elderly  men,  the  yomig  men 
are  young  men,  the  women  are  women,  and  the  children  are 
children*!.    Some  indeed  take  the  elders  to  mean  office-bearers 

"  c.  54.  I'  c.  2  1.  '1  So  Bunsen  :    Ignatius  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  102. 


II.]  CLEMENS    ROMA  NFS.  141 

in  the  churchy  while  Burton  has  supposed  that  the  rulers  are 
civil  rulers.  Both  of  these  interpretations  seem  to  me  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  context.  If  the  rulers  included  the 
elders,  why  mention  them  again  ?  Besides  Clemens  is  discus- 
sing the  propriety  of  acting  worthily  of  God  in  all  relations, 
and  he  could  scarcely,  in  mentioning  young  men,  women,  and 
children,  fail  to  take  notice  of  the  respect  due  to  old  men. 
The  objection  to  Burton^s  notion  is  that  Clemens  is  dealing 
entirel}'  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Corinthian  church. 
Both  these  interpretations  are  quite  consistent  with  the 
opinions  expressed  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle ;  but  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  a  variety  of  others  which  church  zeal 
has  excogitated.  We  give  that  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Thoennissen,  who  has  published  a  separate  dissertation  on  this 
passage.  He  wishes  to  show  that  there  is  one  bishop,  and 
that  presbyters  are  different  from  bishops.  He  allows  that 
the  passages  already  quoted  from  chapters  xl.  xlii.  and  xliv. 
fail  to  do  this  ;  he  lays  his  whole  stress  on  the  passages  now 
before  us"".  Those  who  rule  over  us,  he  says,  are  bishops,  the 
elders  are  the  church  presbyters,  the  young  men  are  the  laity; 
the  women  and  children  he  does  not  include  in  his  inter- 
pretation. He  finds  indeed  a  difficulty  in  Clemens^s  use  of 
the  plural '  rulers.''  However,  such  a  difficulty  is  a  matter  of 
slight  moment.  The  rulers  are  the  present  bishop  of  Corinth 
and  every  bishop  that  is  to  succeed  him.  Clemens  provides 
for  futurity s. 

We  have  no  intimation  of  the  duties  assigned  to  overseers 
and  deacons.  The  work  of  the  overseers  is  called  a  XeirovpyCa 
or  service,  and  it  is  described  as  an  offering  of  gifts  {to.  bcipa 
iTpo(T(t)4p€Lv) .  Of  the  deacons  nothing  is  said ;  and,  so  far  as 
this  epistle  goes,  it  might  be  doubted  whether  they  were  a 

r  c.  I.  and  c.  21. 

8  Abhandlungen,  p.  71.  This  is  the  second  of  the  Abhandlungeu,  already- 
mentioned.  Thoennissen  is  remarkably  candid  in  the  first  part  of  it,  evidently 
with  the  hope  of  gaining  greater  favour  for  his  new  mode  of  proWng  the 
established  doctrine.  Tlie  treatise  gives  references  to  most  of  the  literature 
on  these  passages. 


142  THE    APOSTOLICAL     FATHERS.        [Chak 

separate  clasps  at  all.  For  in  the  passag-e  already  quoted  'the 
overseers  and  servants'  mij^ht  perfectly  well  be  the  same  per- 
sons ;  and  in  the  only  other  two  i)laces  in  which  the  words 
occur,  there  is  a  possibility  of  regarding-  the  two  designations 
as  merely  difl'erent  phases  of  the  same  office.  "  For  long  ago 
it  was  written  of  overseers  and  servants;  for  thus  sa}s  the 
Avriting  :  I  will  aj)poiut  their  overseers  in  righteousness  and 
their  servants  in  peace '.^^  The  church  is  urged  to  honour 
her  elders",  and  to  be  in  subjection  to  them 5^. 

No  mention  is  made  of  any  of  the  rites  of  the  church. 
Some  have  imagined  an  allusion  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
description  of  the  overseers  '  bringing  their  gifts.'  But  this 
is  pure  fancy.  'Bringing  their  gifts'  plainly  means  'doing 
what  service  God  has  enabled  them  to  perform  for  the  church  ;' 
or,  as  W.  Burton  has  it,  '  undergoing  the  duties  of  their  epi- 
scopacy.' The  attempt  that  Cotelerius  has  made  to  prove  that 
it  refers  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  failure,  because  he  appeals 
for  support  to  writers  of  a  much  later  date  than  Clemens,  and 
of  a  style  of  thinking  totally  different  from  his.  And  even 
he  includes  more  than  the  simple  giving  of  thanks  at  the 
Lord's  Supper;  for  he  explains  the  hS)pa  as  "preces  fidelium, 
sacrificia  incruenta,  sanctam  Eucharistiam." 

FiUure  State. — Very  little  is  said  in  Clemens  of  a  futm'e 
state.  He  devotes  three  chapters  to  the  resurrection,  but  he 
speaks  only  of  the  resurrection  "  of  those  who  serve  the  Maker 
of  all  in  a  holy  mannery."  His  mode  of  proving  the  resur- 
rection deserves  notice.  He  appeals  first  to  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  as  the  firstfruits,  and  then  he  finds  analogies  of  it 
in  nature,  in  day  and  night,  in  fruits,  and  in  the  phoenix.  He 
does  not  once  utter  a  single  remark  about  those  wdio  do  not 
serve  God.  Perhaps  something  might  be  inferred  from  the 
statement  that  those  who  fear  God  will  be  protected  from  the 
coming  judgments  by  his  mercy '^.  But  the  expression  'coming 
judgments'  may  possibly  refer  to  anticipated  calamities  in  this 
world,  since  this  use  of  Kpl^a  is  cpute  common,  and  actually 

'  c.  42.  u  c.  I.  «  c.  57.  y  c.  26.  '  c.  28. 


II.]  CLEMEXS   ROMAN  VS.  143 

occurs  in  chapter  xl.  and  in  the  previous  chapter :  "  Let  our 
souls  be  hound  to  Him,  who  is  faithful  in  his  promises  and 
just  in  his  judgments  a." 

The  place  to  which  the  blessed  go  is  called  '  the  place  of  glory 
that  is  due/  or  '  the  holy  place''/  That  Clemens  means  by  this 
some  region  to  which  the  pious  immediately  proceed,  there 
can  be  no  doubt ;  for  he  says  expressly  that  "  those  who  have 
been  perfected  in  love,  according  to  the  favour  of  God,  hold 
the  place  of  the  pious  {exovaiv  x^pov  eto-e/Swi'),  and  will  be 
manifested  in  the  oversight  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ*'/^  that 
is,  when  Christ  shall  appear  again  to  take  a  full  view  of  his 
kingdom.  These  words  are  ajiplied,  moreover,  not  only  to 
Christians,  but  to  the  generations  of  the  faithful  from  the 
time  of  Adam. 

The  martyrs  are  spoken  of  as  receiving  their  reward''.  Of 
the  greatness  of  this  reward  Clemens  speaks  in  terms  of  the 
highest  expectation.  In  reference  to  the  passage,  ''Eye  hath 
not  seen,  and  ear  hath  not  heard,  and  it  hath  not  entered  into 
the  heart  of  man  to  conceive,  how  many  things  He  has  pre- 
pared for  those  that  await  Him,'^  he  exclaims,  ''  How  blessed 
and  wonderful,  beloved,  are  the  gifts  of  God  !  life  in  immor- 
tality, brilliancy  in  righteousness,  truth  in  boldness  of  speech, 
faith  in  confidence,  self-restraint  in  holiness ;  and  all  these 
things  have  come  under  our  power  of  apprehension.  What 
then  must  the  things  be  which  are  prepared  for  those  who 
wait  for  him?  The  Fashioner  and  Father  of  the  ages,  the 
All-holy,  alone  knows  their  quantity  and  beauty^.^''  These  are 
"the  great  and  glorious  promises  of  GodV'  of  which  we  may 
become  partakers  if  we  wait  on  God. 

One  passage  in  the  epistle  has  been  supposed  by  some  to 
teach  that  the  saints  after  death  hear  prayers.  "  Let  us  pray 
then,'^  he  says,  "  for  those  who  are  in  any  sin,  that  gentleness 
and  humilitj'  may  be  granted  to  them,  that  they  may  yield 
not  to  us  but  to  the  \vill  of  God ;  for  thus  the  recollection  of 
them  by  God  and  the  saints,  accompanied  as  it  will  be,  with 

•  c.  27.  ''  c.  5.  c  c.  50. 

''  c.  6.  e  c.  35.  '  c.  34. 


144  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FA  THE  US.         [Chap. 

mercies,  will  l;e  fruitful  and  perfect  ^/^  The  words  ?/  tt/jos  tuv 
Qiov  Koi  Tovi  ayiovs  //er'  oiKTip^iGiv  fxvda,  might  unquestionably 
mean  the  mention  made  of  them  in  prayers  to  God  and  the 
saints ;  but  the  other  rendering  suits  the  context  better,  and 
the  word  ayiovs  is  too  iudetinite  to  warrant  us  in  regarding- 
them  as  saints  who  had  died. 

We  have  already  quoted  the  passage  from  Irena'us  in  which 
he  mentions  that  Clemens  spoke  of  the  fire  which  God  pre- 
pared for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 

T//e  Scr'qUures. — Clemens  quotes  frequently  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  mentions  or  uses  the  following  \mters — 
Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel. 

He  speaks  in  the  most  decisive  terms  of  the  authority  of 
the  writers.  The  quotations  are  introduced  by  "  It  is  written,''^ 
"  The  holy  word  says,^'  and  such  like.  The  books  are  expressly 
called  the  sacred  books.  "And  what  is  wonderful,  if  those 
who  in  Christ  were  intrusted  by  God  with  this  work,  appointed 
those  pi'cviously  mentioned  ?  when  also  the  blessed  Moses,  a 
faithful  servant  in  all  his  house,  marked  dowTi  in  the  sacred 
books  all  the  things  which  had  been  commanded  him.  He 
was  also  followed  by  the  other  prophets,  who  bore  witness  to 
the  laws  which  had  been  given  by  him'."  The  prophets 
were  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  so  spake  that 
the  writers  can  quote  their  words  as  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Spirit :  "  Examine  carefully  the  Scriptures,  the  true  (sayings) 
of  the  Holy  Spirit''.'^  "The  servants  of  the  grace  of  God 
spoke  through  the  Holy  Spirit  wath  regard  to  change  of 
mind^."  "  Let  us  do  what  has  been  written,  for  the  Holy 
Spirit  says"^,"  &c.  "As  the  Holy  Spirit  has  spoken  with 
regard  to  him,  for  he  says"."  This  being  the  case,  the  writer 
does  not  hesitate  to  attribute  to  God  the  words  assigned  Him 
in  the  Old  Testament :  "  the  Lord  of  all  has  Himself  spoken 
with  regard  to  a  change  of  mind°."  And  such  statements 
of  God  Himself  are  most  probably  what  is  meant  b}'  the  to. 
Xoyia  Tov  Qiov,  when  mention  is  made  of  those  who  have 
received  his  oracles  in  fear  and  truth  p. 

^  c.  56.  '  c.  43.  •*  c.  45.  '  c.  8. 

™  c.  13.  "  c.  16.  *>  c.  8.  I'  c.  19. 


II.]  CLEMEXS    ROMANUS.  I4'> 

NotvrithstaiKling-  this  distinct  assignment  of  the  words  of 
the  prophets  to  the  Holy  Spirit^  Clemens  takes  the  Hberty  of 
misquoting-  the  verses,  changing  the  words,  and  joining  to- 
gether in  a  remarkable  manner  various  passages  culled  from 
different  authors.  As  an  example  we  take  the  following  from 
chapter  xxix,  placing  beside  it  the  translation  of  the  Septua- 
gint  from  which  Clemens  generally  quotes  : — 

Clemens. 


....  And  in  another  place  it  says  : 
Lo,  the  Lord  taketh  to  Himself  a 
nation  from  the  midst  of  nations,  as 
a  man  taketh  the  firstfruits  of  his 
threshingfloor,  and  the  holy  of  holies 
shall  go  forth  from  that  nation. 


Numbers  xviii.  27. 
And  what  is  taken  away  from  you 
shall  be    reckoned  to  you   as   wheat 
from  the  threshingfloor,  and  a  taking 
away  from  the  winepress. 

1  Chron.  xxxi.  14. 
And  Core  the  son  of  Jemna  the 
Levite,  the  gatekeeper  at  the  east, 
had  the  charge  of  the  gifts  to  give  the 
firstfruits  of  the  Lord  and  the  holy 
of  holies. 

We  have  an  instance  of  a  very  remarkable  liberty  which 
Clemens  takes  with  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  his 
speaking  of  overseers  and  deacons.  Isaiah  Ix.  17  concludes 
with,  "And  I  shall  give  th}^  rulers  {apxovTas)  in  peace  and 
thy  overseers  in  righteousness ;"  which  Clemens  thus  quotes  : 
''For  thus  the  writing  somewhere  says,  'I  will  appoint  their 
overseers  in  righteousness  and  their  servants  (deacons)  in 
faith^i.^^' 

Clemens  invariablj^  quotes  from  the  Septuag*int  version, 
and  gives  us  readings  found  in  it  but  not  occurring  in  the 
Hebrew.  The  account  of  Cain  and  Abel,  where  the  reason 
of  the  rejection  of  the  sacrifice  is  given,  and  where  the  words 
AiiKOoonev  els  to  irebiov  are  added,  is  an  instance •■.  He  also 
incorporates  in  his  narratives  taken  from  the  Old  Testament 
some  incidents  or  opinions  not  found  there.  Thus  he  speaks 
of  Isaac's  willingness  to  be  offered  up ;  and  in  giving  an 
account  of  the  choice  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  for  priestly  offices, 
he  introduces  several  circumstances  which  are  found  neither 
in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  Josephus''. 

1    C.   42.  !■    C.   4.  •    C.   43. 

VOL.  1.  L 


14!;  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

Clemens  also  quotes  several  i)assat(es  whieli  are  now  not  to 
be  found  in  the  Old  Testament.     We  g-ive  a  list  of  them  : — 

1 .  The  first  quotation  is  tacked  to  two  verses  from  Ezekiel, 
and  the  words  are  mentioned  as  being  spoken  by  God.  They 
ai'e :  "  Say  to  the  sons  of  my  people.  If  your  sins  reach  from 
the  earth  to  the  heaven,  and  if  they  be  redder  than  scarlet, 
and  blacker  than  sackcloth,  and  ye  turn  to  me  with  the  whole 
of  your  heart,  and  say,  O  Father;  I  will  hear  you  as  a  holy 
people.^'  The  commentators,  allowing  that  this  passage  is 
not  in  Scripture,  bid  us  compare  Jer.  iii.  4,  19,  Psalm  eiii.  11^ 
Ih:aiah  i.  18,  and  Ezok.  xviii.  30". 

2.  "  Moses  again  says  :  'I  am  vapour  from  a  pot".'"  It 
would  be  useless  to  enumerate  the  conjectures  which  have 
been  made  with  regard  to  this  passage  from  the  time  of 
Clirysostom  to  the  present  day.  They  leave  the  reader  where 
they  find  him. 

3.  "Far  be  from  you  this  scripture  (writing)  where  it  says, 
Wretched  are  the  double-souled,  w^ho  waver  in  their  soul ; 
who  say.  These  things  vre  have  heard  even  in  the  days  of 
our  fathers,  and  lo  !  we  have  grown  old  and  none  of  them 
has  happened  to  us.  O  fools,  compare  yourselves  to  a 
tree.  Take  the  vine :  first  it  sheds  its  leaves,  then  comes 
the  bud,  then  the  leaf,  then  the  flower,  and  after  that  the 
unripe  grape,  then  the  ripe  grape.  See  how  in  a  short  time 
the  fruit  of  the  tree  reaches  ri])euessy."  AA'ottou  absurdly 
supposes  this  a  combination  of  James  i.  8  and  2  Pet.  iii.  3,  4. 

4.  "  For  he  says,  (or,  the  Scripture  says,)  Eye  hath  not 
seen,  and  ear  hath  not  heard,  and  it  hath  not  gone  up  into 
the  heart  of  man,  how  many  things  He  hath  prepared  for 
them  that  wait  for  Him."  These  words  are  the  same  as 
those  quoted  by  Paul  in  i  Cor.  ii.  9.  We  learn  from  Origen 
and  other  fathers  that  this  quotation  was  made  from  the 
Revelation  of  Elias,  now  lost. 

5.  "  For  it  has  been  written :  Be  joined  to  the  holy,  for 
those  that  are  joined  to  them  shall  be  made  lioly^." 

6.  "  For  it  has  been  written :  Enter  into  thy  chamber  for 
"  c.  8.  *  e.  17.  -'   c.  2.'5.  '  c.  34.  •■'  c.  46. 


II.]  CLEMENS    ROAfAXrS.  14/ 

a  very  little,  until  my  auger  aud  wrath  pass  away,  and  I 
shall  remcralier  the  good  day,  and  I  shall  raise  you  from  your 
tombs b."  The  first  clause  is  taken  from  Isa.  xxvi.  20.  The 
last  clause  of  this  verse  is  found  in  4  Ezra  ii.  16  :  "  Et  rosus- 
citabo  mortuos  de  loeis  suis/^  Liiclie,  in  die  Offenb.  Joh.  i. 
152,  maintains  that  this'  cannot  be  the  source  of  the  quo- 
tation, the  passage  being  a  later  Christian  addition. 

Only  in  the  case  of  the  foiirth  do  we  know  the  source  of 
the  quotation,  and  in  that  instance  we  can  scai'cely  refuse  to 
believe  that  Clemens  regarded  the  book  as  at  least  containing 
divinely  inspired  words.  In  some  of  the  cases  he  may  have 
made  a  slip  of  the  memory,  but  in  others  he  must  have 
quoted  from  apocryphal  works  which  he  regarded  as  written 
hy  means  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

There  is  no  theory  of  inspiration  in  Clemens ;  but  some 
have  supposed  that  the  use  of  the  word  ypac^etoy  (c.  28.)  in 
reference  to  the  Psalms  indicates  Clemens's  adherence  to  the 
division  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa,  the  last  of  which  was  not 
equal  in  authority  to  the  former.  But  this  is  building  far  too 
much  on  one  word,  especially  when  the  earliest  authorities 
that  can  be  adduced  for  this  use  of  ypacp^lov  are  Epiphanius 
and  Jerome c. 

T/ie  Neiv  Testament. — There  is  no  express  reference  to 
any  book  of  the  New  Testament  except  to  the  letter  of  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians.  The  allusion  to  it  suggests  some  dif- 
ficulties :  "  Take  up  the  letter  of  the  blessed  Paul  the  apostle. 
What  first  did  he  write  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  ?  Of  a  truth  he  spiritually  warned  you  through 
letter,  in  regard  to  himself  and  Cephas  and  Apollos,  because 
even  at  that  time  you  had  formed  parti es^.'^  Here  it  has  been 
asked.  Did  Clemens  know  anything  of  the  letter  which  Paul 

b  c.  50. 

c  See  Epiph.  Haer.  29,  c.  7  ;  and  Hieron.  in  Prologo  galeato  and  Pra.fatio  ad 
Danifclem  ;  Philo  de  Vita  Contemplativa,  post  initium  p.  893  ;  Joseph,  cont. 
Apionem,  p.  1036,  post  initium. 

■•  c.  47. 

L  2 


148  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

sent  to  the  Corinthians  before  he  sent  the  one  which  now 
stands  as  our  first?  or  did  he  know  anything  of  our  second 
epistle,  as  he  mentions  simply  t/ie  letter? 

We  cannot  hesitate  to  answer,  that  Clemens's  knowledge 
of  both  these  unmentioned  letters  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  mode  of  speaking  employed  here.  The  letter  does  not 
mean  ilie  onlij  letter,  but  it  plainly  means  the  letter  in  which 
reference  is  made  to  the  subject  of  which  I  speak.  Other 
passages  show  that  Clemens  was  probably  well  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  Paul;  and  we  have  already  exhibited 
the  remarkable  correspondence  of  some  parts  of  this  epistle 
with  the  discourse  addressed  to  the  Hebrews.  "We  cannot 
assert  that  Clemens  qiiotes  from  any  other  of  the  New 
Testament  writings;  but  there  is  ample  proof  that  he  had 
access  either  to  some  oral  source  for  the  words  of  Christ, 
or  some  written  source  now  lost.  The  words  of  Christ 
quoted  may  be  divided  into  two  classes.  In  one  of  these 
we  range  those  words  the  like  of  which  are  found  in  our 
Gospels,  though  Clemens  plainly  does  not  quote  from  them. 
They  are  these  : — 

1.  From  the  Sermon  on  the  INIount  we  have  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Especially  remembering  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
which  He  spoke,  teaching  gentleness  and  patience;  for 
thus  He  spoke  :  Pity,  that  ye  may  be  pitied ;  forgive,  that  ye 
may  be  forgiven:  as  ye  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  you;  as 
ye  give,  so  shall  it  be  given  to  you;  as  ye  judge,  so  shall 
ye  be  judged;  as  ye  are  kind,  so  shall  ye  be  treated  kindly; 
with  what  measm-e  ye  measure,  with  the  same  shall  it  be 
measured  to  you^.^'  Comjiare  with  this  Matthew  \4.  14; 
vii.  2,  12;  Luke  vi.  31,  37,  38.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  for  supposing  that  Clemens  drew  these  words  from 
the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  as  Wotton  conjectures. 

2.  "  Remember  the  words  of  Jesus  our  Lord,  for  He  said : 
Woe  to  that  man  :  well  were  it  for  him  if  he  had  not  been 
born,  rather  than  that  he  should  cause  one  of  those  whom  I 
have  selected  to  stumble ;  better  were  it  that  a  millstone  were 

•  c.  13. 


II.]  CLEMENS    ROMAXVS.  149 

put  round  him  and  he  were  sunk  into  the  Kca,  tlian  that  he 
should  cause  one  of  my  little  ones  to  stumble f."  Compare 
Matt.  xx\n.  24;  Mark  xiv.  21:  Matt,  xviii.  6;  Mark  ix. 
42  ;  Luke  xvii.  2. 

3.  The  next  quotation  has  nothing  similar  to  it  in  our 
Gospels.  Clemens  saysS  that  the  apostles  throug-h  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  knew  that  there  would  be  strife  on  account  of 
the  office  of  overseer. 

It  is  impossible  to  decide  from  what  source  Clemens  made 
these  quotations.  From  the  way  in  which  the  sayings  of 
Christ  are  introduced,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  they  were 
quite  familiar  to  the  Corinthians,  or  at  least  were  accessible 
to  them.  The  words  "  Remember  the  words"  are  perhaps 
understood  most  naturally,  if  we  suppose  that  they  were 
handed  down  by  oral  tradition.  But  we  must  suppose  in 
the  case  of  the  second  that  it  was  either  in  a  book  or  very 
soon  afterwards  found  its  way  into  one,  as  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  quotes  it  almost  word  for  word  with  our  Clemens. 
Some  have  supposed  that  Clemens  used  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
or  some  such  gospel ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  be  precise  on 
such  a  point. 

Some  expressions  or  turns  of  thought  have  been  appealed 
to  as  indicating  Clemens^s  acquaintance  with  other  sayings 
of  Christ,  or  with  the  statements  of  the  gospels.  Clemens 
begins  a  sentence,  "A  sower  went  forth  to  sow;"  which  is 
regarded  as  proof  that  he  knew  the  parable  of  the  Sower. 
He  uses  the  expression  "  giving  more  willingly  than  receiv- 
ing," and  hence  he  is  supposed  to  have  known  the  saying  of 
Christ  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  35;  while  Hilgenfeld  puzzles 
himself  with  the  expression,  "The  Lord  Himself  having 
adorned  Himself  with  works,  rejoiced  b;"  which  he  thinks 
must  be  referred  either  to  an  uncanonical  narrative,  or  to 
Matt.  xi.  5,  and  Luke  vii.  22 ;  though  the  whole  con- 
nection forces  us  to  regard  the  writer  as  speaking  of  God 
and  not  of  Christ. 

Nothing  is  said  of  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament 

'    C.   46.  i    C.  44.  b    C.    33. 


150  THE  ArOHTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

writers.  Some  have  taken  the  word  "  spiritually/*  applied 
to  Paulj  as  meaning-  that  he  was  divinely  inspired.  But 
Paul's  own  use  of  the  word  clearly  demonstrates  that  it 
does  not  of  itself  imply  extraordinarj'  inspiration,  that  it 
is  a  word  used  of  all  Christians  in  whom  the  Spirit  dwells 
and  works.  There  are  several  passag-es  which  speak  of  the 
commission  of  the  apostles^  as  the  following- :  "  The  apostles 
were  entrusted  with  the  message  of  good  news  to  us  hy 
Christ;  Christ  hy  God'.''  "  They  received  commands,  and 
being-  fully  assured  through  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  confirmed  in  their  faith  in  God's  Word,  they 
went  forth  proclaiming  the  good  news  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  about  to  come  ^." 

Clemens  mentions  several  facts  of  the  lives  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  but  in  such  a  way  that  it  has  been  inferred  that  he 
was  not  acquainted  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Tliis 
perhaps  is  going  too  far,  as  none  of  his  statements  are 
contradictory  to  those  in  Luke;  and  indeed  most  of  them 
relate  to  a  period  of  the  lives  of  the  apostles  not  falling 
within  the  range  of  Luke.  With  regard  to  Peter  he  states 
that  he  endured  several  troubles  on  account  of  jealousy,  and 
that  having  borne  his  testimony  he  went  to  the  due  place 
of  glory.  He  remarks  of  Paul  that  he  bore  chains  seven 
times,  that  he  was  put  to  flight,  and  was  stoned,  that  he 
proclaimed  the  truth  in  the  east  and  the  west,  that  he 
taught  the  whole  world  righteousness,  and  that  having 
come  to  the  limit  of  the  west  and  having  borne  his  testimony 
before  rulers,  he  was  thus  removed  from  the  world  and  went 
into  the  holy  place.  Much  discussion  has  arisen  as  to  all 
that  is  implied  in  these  statements.  Vniether  does  Clemens 
mean  to  state  that  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  with 
Paul  ?  What  is  meant  by  the  ripixa  rr,?  bixrecas,  Rome  or 
Spain  ?  Now  we  have  no  means  of  determining  precisely 
these  questions.  But  from  the  way  in  which  Peter  and  Paul 
are  spoken  of  together,  we   should  infer  that   Clemens  was 

'    C.   ^2  k    C.   4'2. 


II.]  CLEMEXS  ROMAXrS.  151 

not  aware  tliat  Peter  had  been  in  the  west.  Whether  S]iain 
is  meant,  is  an  insohible  question ;  but  as  Paul  expresses 
a  determination  to  visit  Spain,  we  should  regard  it  as  pro- 
bable from  this  expression  that  he  did  visit  Spain.  Some 
have  brouo-lit  tog-ether  a  number  of  passages  in  which  Rome 
is  called  the  west,  and  have  hence  wished  us  to  believe  that 
Rome  was  here  mentioned.  But  the  quotations  are  from 
Greek  writers,  to  whom  Rome  certainly  was  the  west ;  and 
even  Clemens  himself,  in  Rome,  might  call  it  the  west.  But 
would  he  call  it  the  limit  of  the  west  ?  Or  has  an}^  other 
writer  so  named  it?  Does  Clemens  then  represent  Paul 
as  beiug  martyred  in  Spain  ?  He  does  not  in  fact  say  where 
he  was  martyred,  and  it  is  questionable  whether  he  asserts 
that  Peter  and  Paul  were  martyred  at  all.  It  cannot  be 
proved  that  fxaprvpeo),  'to  bear  witness,'  had  acquired  this 
meaning  yet ;  and  one  can  scarceh^  help  applying  ^xapTvprjcrai 
em  tQv  fjyovpJ voiv  (bearing  witness  before  the  rulers)  to  the 
various  occasions  on  which  Paul  spoke  before  princes— some 
of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
others  of  which  must  have  taken  place  subsequently  to  any 
events  recorded  there'. 

Interpretation  of  Scripture. — Clemens  regarded  Christ  as 
the  centre  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  manifest  in 
the  application  of  innumerable  passages  to  Christ,  such  as 
the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah.  Elijah  and  Elisha  and 
Ezekiel  are  especially  mentioned  as  proclaiming  the  coming 
of  Christ™.  In  fact  he  expressly  states  "  that  Christ  speaks 
through  tlie  Holy  Spirit  when  he  quotes  the  words  of  Psalm 
xxxiv.  11-18. 

We  find  also  in  Clemens,  as  we  have  already  seen,  some 
instances  of  gnostic  interpretation.  In  the  fortieth  chapter 
we  have  distinct  enunciation  of  his  belief  that  he  was 
penetrating  into  the  depths  of  divine  knowledge.  There  is 
no  hint  however  that  the  peculiar  faculty  required  for  this 

'  f>n  tVie  quotations  from  the  Old  ami  New  Testament,  see  especially  Hil- 
genfeld,  Ap.   V.  ;  anl  Ekker,  cli.  iii. 
■n  c.  I  7.  "  c.  22. 


152  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

piii-pose  was  a  yrwtrts  or  si)iritiial  development ;  nor  does  he 
regard  his  interpretation  as  anjthing  so  singular  as  to  require 
a  full  exhibition  of  it.  He  supposes  his  readers  penetrating 
along  with  him  into  the  depths  of  divine  knowledge.  We 
should  be  entirely  wrong  then  if  we  were  to  maintain  that 
Clemens  had  before  his  eyes  a  distinct  theory  of  interpre- 
tation, but  at  the  same  time  there  are  signs  that  the 
necessity  of  a  pervasively  Christian  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  unconsciously  forcing  him  to  look  for  some 
mysterious  intimations  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  only  con- 
elusive  instance  of  this  however  is  where  he  discovers  in  the 
scarlet  thread  of  Rahab°  a  prophetic  intimation  of  the  de- 
liverance of  men  through  the  blood  of  Christ  p.  But  there  are 
several  other  passages  which  probably  must  be  so  understood. 
Thus  he  speaks  of  Noah  proclaiming  a  new  birth  to  the 
world  hy  his  ser\acej  &c.q  He  interprets  Psalm  iii.  5,  and 
Job  xix.  25,  26,  of  the  resurrection.  Colomesius  says  he  is 
the  first  to  do  so. 

Morality. — Nothing  need  be  said  of  the  morality  of  this 
epistle.  On  the  whole  it  bears  testimony  to  a  pure  and 
noble  code  of  morals — higher  far  than  anything  that  can 
be  found  in  heathenism.  The  most  noticeable  point  in  it 
is  the  attention  the  writer  and  the  church  pay  to  the 
conduct  of  women  and  young  men,  and  to  the  Christian 
education  of  children.  Perhaps  in  the  case  of  women  Cle- 
mens goes  too  far  in  self-denying  injunctions,  but  we  leave 
the  reader  to  judge.  He  tells  the  women  that  they  were 
to  bestow  their  love  (dyaTTTj),  not  according  to  partiality 
(Tipoo-KXtVet?),  but  they  were  to  bestow  it  equally  on  all  who 
feared  God  holily  *".  The  ayd-TTTj  of  course  is  that  brotherly 
love  which  prevailed  between  members  of  Christ. 

There  is  nothing  like  a  s^-stem  of  morals.  And  accord- 
ingly those  who  have  attempted  to  draw  a  system  out  of 
it  have  started  from  different  points.     Heyns  looks  on  "  love 

"  See  Lips.  p.  51.  i"  c.  12.  1  c.  9. 

'  c.  21.  See  on  this  suliject  and  that  of  mart}Tflom,  Van  Gilse,  Comment, 
p    40. 


II.]  CLEMENS  ROMANUS.  153 

to  God  and  to  men"  as  the  great  principle  of  Clemens  ^ ;  Jani 
van  Gilse  reg-ards  "union  with  God  and  Christ"  as  the 
main  moral  doctrine  of  the  work*;  while  Junius  wisely 
lays  down  faith,  hope,  and  love,  as  his  three  principles, 
stating-  at  the  same  time  that  Clemens  nowhere  calls  them 
principles  ". 

•  Comment,  p.  12.  '  Ibid.  p.  34.  "  Ibid.  p.  ri. 


CHAPTER   III. 

POLYCARP. 

Life. 

1  HE  knowledge  which  we  have  of  Polycai-p  rests  on  two 
authorities — the  wo-iting-s  of  Irenaens,  and  a  letter  sent  by 
the  church  in  Sm3-rna  to  a  neig-hbouring  church.  Various 
other  notices  occur  in  other  writers,  but  all  of  these  which 
have  any  foundation  are  founded  on  the  statements  of 
Ireuseus.     We  shall  therefore  examine  these  first. 

From  a  letter  which  Irenseus  sent  to  Florinus  on  doctrinal 
points,  and  which  Eusebius  has  preserved,  we  learn  that  he 
had  access  to  the  best  sources  of  information  with  regard  to 
Polycarp.  "  "VMiile  I  was  yet  a  boy,"  he  says,  "  I  saw  you  in 
Lower  Asia  with  Polycarp,  pursuing  a  brilliant  career  in  the 
royal  court,  and  trying  to  be  well  pleasing  to  him.  For  I 
remember  the  occurrences  of  those  days  better  than  the  more 
recent  (for  instructions  which  we  receive  in  childhood  grow 
up  with  our  soul  aud  become  one  with  it) ;  so  that  I  can  tell 
even  the  spot  in  which  the  blessed  Polycai-p  sat  and  con- 
versed, and  his  outgoings  and  incomings,  and  the  character 
of  his  life,  and  the  form  of  his  body,  and  the  conversations 
which  he  held  with  the  multitude;  and  how  he  related 
his  familiar  intercourse  with  John  and  the  rest  who  had 
seen  the  Lord,  aud  how  he  rehearsed  their  sayings,  and 
what  things  they  wei-e  which  he  had  heard  from  them 
with  regard  to  the  Lord  and  his  miracles  aud  teaching. 
All  these  things  Polycarp  related  in  harmony  with  the 
writings,  as  having  received  them  from  the  eyewitnesses  of 
the  Word  of  life.     Those  thiuo-s  then   T  wns  in   the  habit  of 


Chap.  Ill]  POLY  CAR  P.  1 .-).") 

c'ao'crly  hearing  thvou^^h  the  mercy  given  me  by  God,  storing' 
them  up,  not  on  paper  but  in  my  heart;  and  always  I 
ruminate  over  them  faithfully  through  the  grace  of  God. 
And  I  can  bear  witness  before  God,  that  if  that  blessed  and 
apostolic  presbyter  had  heard  any  such  thing^i,  he  would 
have  cried  out  and  stopped  his  ears,  and  according  to  his 
custom  said,  '  O  good  God,  for  what  times  hast  thou  pre- 
served me  that  I  should  endure  these  things  !^  and  he  would 
have  fled  the  place  in  which  sitting  or  standing  he  had  heard 
such  sayingst*/" 

The  second  extract  gives  us  more  particular  information 
with  regard  to  Polj'carp :  "  And  Polycarp,  who  was  not 
only  instructed  by  apostles,  and  had  intercourse  with  many 
who  had  seen  Christ,  but  was  also  appointed  for  Asia  by 
apostles,  in  the  church  that  is  in  Smyrna,  an  overseer, 
whom  also  we  have  seen  in  the  beginning  of  our  life,  for 
he  remained  a  long  time,  and  at  an  exceeding  old  age, 
having  borne  his  testimony  gloriously  and  most  notably, 
departed  this  life,  always  taught  these  things,  which  also 
he  learned  from  the  apostles,  which  also  he  gave  to  the 
Church<=,  and  which  alone  are  true.  To  these  doctrines 
testimony  is  also  borne  by  all  the  churches  throughout  Asia, 
and  by  those  who  have  been  up  till  this  time  the  successors 
of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  much  more  trustworthy  and  secure 
witness  of  the  truth  than  Valentinus  and  Marcion  and  the 
rest  who  held  wicked  opinions.  He  (Polycarp)  also  sojourning- 
at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Anicetus,  converted  many  from  the 
previously  mentioned  heretics  to  the  Church  of  God,  having- 
proclaimed  that  he  had  received  from  the  apostles  this  as  the 
one  and  only  ti'uth  which  he  had  delivered  to  the  Church. 
And  there  are  those  who  heard  him  say  that  John  the  disciple 
of  the  Lord  having  gone  to  bathe  in  Ephesus,  on  seeing 
Ceriuthus  inside,  leaped  from  the  bathing  establishment 
without  bathing,  and  exclaimed,  '  Let  us  flee,  lest  the  baths 

*  He  refers  to  the  heresies  against  which  he  is  writing. 

•>  Euseb.  V.  20;  Iren.  Stier.  p.  822. 

«  Different  rfading  in  Eufsebius  :  "  which  the  C  huich  hands  down." 


156  TUB  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

fall  in,  since  Cerintlius  the  enemy  of  the  truth  is  within/ 
And  Polyearp  himself,  when  Marcion  one  time  met  him  and 
said,  '  Do  yon  rccog^nise  us  ?'  answered,  '  I  recognise  the 
firstborn  of  Satan/  Such  was  the  caution  which  the 
ai")0stles  and  their  disciides  took  not  to  have  even  verbal 
communication  with  those  who  perverted  the  truth ;  as  Paul 
also  said,  'A  heretical  man  av^oid  after  a  first  and  second •* 
admonition,  knowing  that  such  a  one  has  been  turned 
away,  and  sins,  being*  self  condemned*^/  " 

The  third  extract  is  from  a  letter  which  Irenseus  wrote  in 
the  hope  of  quieting  the  exasperation  caused  by  the  con- 
troversies about  the  method  of  celebrating  the  Passover. 
"  While  the  blessed  Polyearp  was  sojourning  in  Rome  ia 
the  time  of  Anicetus,  they  had  slight  disputes  about  some 
other  matters,  and  immediately  were  reconciled.  About  this 
subject  they  did  not  show  any  liking  for  a  quarrel.  For 
neither  was  Anicetus  able  to  persuade  Polyearp  not  to 
observe  [the  fast],  since  he  had  always  observed  it  with  John 
the  disciple  of  our  Lord  and  the  other  apostles  with  whom 
he  stayed.  Nor  did  Polyearp  persuade  Anicetus  to  keep  it, 
saying  that  he  oug-ht  to  retain  the  custom  of  those  who 
were  presbyters  before  him.  And  this  being  the  case,  they 
communicated  with  each  other,  and  in  the  church  Anicetus 
yielded  up  to  Polyearp  the  giving  of  thanks,  evidently  by 
way  of  respect  f,  and  they  separated  from  each  other  in  peace, 
while  all  the  church  was  at  peace,  both  those  who  kept  the 
fast  and  those  who  did  uots." 

d  The  Latin  here  omits  *  second.' 

"  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  iii.  3  ;  Euseb.  iv.  14. 

f  The  words  Tropext^pT/tref  eiixaptiTTlav  can  be  translated  in  two  ways.  Either 
they  mean  that  Anicetus  simply  permitted  Polyearp  to  join  his  church  in 
celebrating  the  Eucharist — but  how  this  could  be  an  evrpoiri],  such  as  adopt 
this  meaning  do  not  explain  ;  or  they  must  be  translated  as  in  the  text.  I 
take  eiixapia-riav  as  having  its  original  meaning,  thanksgi\'ing.  And  I  suppose 
that  Polyearp  led  the  services  on  the  occasion  of  the  celebration  of  the  thanks- 
giving or  eucharist.  For  taking  Trapax^pe?!'  fvxo-pi-<niciv  in  the  sense  of  "to 
give  the  eucharist  to  Polyearp,"  (vxapttrrla  being  the  bread  of  thanksgiving 
and  the  wine,  see  Le  Moyne,  Varia  Sacra,  vol.  i.  Prolegom.  fol.  7.  3. 

«  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24.     Iren.  Stieren.  Frag:,  iii.  p.  826. 


III.]  POLY  CARP.  157 

These  three  extracts  contain  all  the  information  which  we 
derive  from  Irenaens.  The  information  which  he  gives  us 
is  thoroughly  to  be  relied  on.  It  is  that  of  one  who  knew 
Polycarp.  There  is  indeed  one  portion  of  Irena^us^s  state- 
ments which  has  been  questioned  with  the  greatest  justice. 
What  he  says  about  the  apostle  John  has  the  appearance 
of  being,  to  say  the  least,  highly  coloured.  But  then  Irenaeus 
saj's  oul}'  that  "there  are  some  who  heard  from  Polycarp 
the  story."  Whether  Irenaeus  himself  heard  it  from  those 
who  said  that  they  had  heard  it  from  Polycarp,  is  left 
uncertain,  and  altogether  the  whole  affair  is  really  unau- 
thentieated.  Moreover  secondary  traditions  in  the  hands  of 
Irenaeus,  as  w^e  shall  see,  are  not  much  to  be  trusted''. 

There  are  several  points  in  the  information  of  Irenaeus  to 
which  special  attention  must  be  called.  The  reason  for  this 
is,  that  they  have  been  misinterpreted  by  Eusebius  and 
Jerome,  who  repeat  his  statements;  and  the  assertions  of 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  have  been  regarded  as  historical  by 
most  modern  scholars. 

As  far  as  the  statements  of  Irenaeus  go,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  reason  for  supposing  that  Polycarp  was  the  only 
overseer  in  the  church  in  Smyrna.  Moreover,  the  application 
of  the  word  Presbyter  to  him  renders  it  likely  that  he  was 
both  a  presbyter  and  an  overseer  at  the  same  time,  and  that 
both  terms  meant  the  same  office.  The  words  of  Irenaeus 
are,  vno  a-oaToKwv  KaraaTaOeh  ets  njy  'Aatav  iv  rr)  ev  '^fj.vfjvrj 
iKKXrjaia  eTTiTKOTros.  If  the  clause  be  translated  as  I  have 
rendered  it,  we  have  no  warrant  for  saying  that  he  was 
made  an  overseer  by  the  apostles.  The  words  ets  'Aaiav 
KaTaaraOeLs  simply  express  the  region  to  which  the  apostles 
appointed  him.  And  the  clause  that  follows  is  a  separate 
and  positive  statement  that  he  was  an  overseer  in  the  church 
in  Smyrna.  Eusebius  seems  to  hav^e  understood  the  words 
in  this  sense.     Taking  the  words  even  in  the  sense  in  which 


h  The  story  has  Iteen  repeated  by  Epiphanius  and  Theodoret,  but  the  name 
of  the  heretic  in  the  former  is  Ebion.     See  Lardner,  Credib.  part  ii.  c.  i6. 


158  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATIIEnS.        [Chap. 

the  Latin  translator  of  Ircna?us  took  them, — "  but  also  having 
been  ap[)uinte(l  by  the  apostles  in  Asia  an  overseer  in  that 
church  which  is. at  Smyrna" — we  still  retain  the  most  essen- 
tial point,  that  he  was  only  one  of  the  number.  Eusebius 
thus  para])hrases  the  information  of  Irena-us :  "  Polyearp, 
an  associate  of  the  apostles,  entrusted  with  the  oversig-ht 
of  the  church  in  Smyrna  by  the  eye-witnesses  and  ser- 
vants of  the  Lord'.''^  This  may  be  perfectly  correct,  but  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  Jerome's  version  of  the  informa- 
tion. "  Polyearp,^'  he  says,  "a  disciple  of  the  apostle  John, 
and  ordained  by  him  bishop  of  Smyrna,  was  the  chief  of  all 
Asia,  inasmuch  as  he  saw  and  had  for  masters  some  of  the 
apostles  and  of  those  who  had  seen  the  Lord.''  Jerome,  as 
far  as  we  know,  had  not  the  slightest  reason  for  associating 
Polyearp  wuth  John  more  than  with  some  other  apostles, 
except  that  John  is  the  only  apostle  whom  Irenseus  mentions 
by  name.  Nor  had  he  better  reason  for  saying  that  he  was 
ordained  by  John,  though  he  has  more  show  of  it.'  For 
Tertullian  relates  that  the  church  of  the  Smyrneans  asserted 
that  John  appointed  Polyearp^;  but  how  he  got  his  informa- 
tion, or  whether  he  is  as  usual  somewhat  inaccurate,  we 
cannot  decide.  Jerome's  assertion,  that  he  was  chief  of  all 
Asia,  has  no  meaning  in  it  when  we  consider  the  mode  of 
government  of  the  churches  in  the  time  of  Pohcarp;  and 
the  reason  he  gives  is  as  foolish  as  the  assertion. 

The  other  points  to  which  we  draw  attention  relate  to  the 
remarks  of  Irenaeus  in  regard  to  Polycar})'s  visit  to  Rome 
and  his  observance  of  the  Passover.  AVe  shall  have  to 
discuss  them  more  fully  in  connection  with  Irena'us  himself. 
In  the  meantime  let  it  be  remarked  that  Irenaus  does  not 
assign  any  reason  for  the  visit  of  Polyearp  to  Rome.  In  the 
two  passages  in  which  he  mentions  it,  he  does  it  in  the 
words  "  while  Polyearp  was  sojourning  in  Rome."  He  does 
not  even  state  at  what  time  he  went  to  Rome.  He  merely 
states  that  he  was  there  in  the  time  of  Anicetus.  Then  let 
it  be  observed  that  Irenwus  states  that  while  Pol\"carp  and 
'  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  36.  i'  De  Pnescript.  c.  xxxii. 


III.]  rOLYCARP.  l.)r> 

Anicetus  did  diOer  on  some  points,  their  difference  as  to  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  was  a  point  on  which  they  did 
not  give  themselves  any  troul)le.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
indication  that  there  was  any  dis])ute  between  them  on  that 
point.  Their  practice  was  different :  their  faith  was  one. 
And  lastly  let  it  be  observed  that  Polycarp  is  represented  as 
observing  the  Passover,  and  Anicetns  and  the  Roman  church 
as  not  observing  it.  At  the  first  glance  at  least  this  repre- 
sentation is  to  the  effect  that  the  Roman  chui'ch  had  no 
peculiar  festival  or  fast  at  the  time  of  the  Passover.  In  a 
very  short  time  after  this  things  were  completely  changed, 
and  the  controversy  that  afterwards  raged  perverted  Eu- 
sebius's  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Irenseus.  He  intro- 
duces our  second  extract  from  Irenseus  in  the  following 
words,  "  That,  while  Anicetus  ruled  the  church  of  the 
Romans,  Polycarp  yet  surWving  came  to  Rome  and  entered 
into  a  conversation  with  Anicetus  on  account  of  some 
discussion  in  reference  to  the  day  on  which  the  Passover  was 
to  be  observed,  Irenoeus  relates'.^^  Irenseus  relates  no  such 
thing,  as  we  have  seen  j  and  Hilgenfeld  is  therefore  entirely 
wrong  in  appealing  to  this  passage  of  Eusebius  as  proof  that 
Polycarp  came  to  Rome  in  order  to  have  a  conference  with 
the  bishop  of  the  capital  of  the  world  in  regard  to  the  day  of 
the  Passover*".  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Eusebius 
had  any  other  information  than  that  to  which  he  appeals 
and  which  he  quotes.  Even  Baur's  more  moderate  assertion, 
that  Polycarp  went  to  Rome  "  to  converse  with  bishop 
Anicetus  about  different  ecclesiastical  subjects  to  which  the 
question  of  the  Passover  especially  belonged",^"  is  entirely  with- 
out foundation.  Jerome's  account  follows  Eusebius:  "He  came 
to  Rome  on  account  of  certain  discussions  relating  to  the  day 
of  the  Passover,  during  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Antoninus 
Pius,  while  Anicetus  governed  the  church  in  the  city°.'' 

'  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  14. 

»"  Der  Paschastreit  cler  alien  Kircbo,  von    A.  Hilgenfeld,  p.  230  (Halle 
i860). 
"  Das  Christcnthuni,  &c.  p.  156.  »  De  Yirih  lUust.  c.  xvii. 


160  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Cuap. 

Later  writers  (Suidas  and  the  authors  of  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions)  g-ive  us  the  succession  of  hishojis  in  the 
Smyrnean  chiu-ch.  Bucolus  was  the  first,  according  to 
Suidas  P.  Accordino-  to  the  autliors  of  the  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions, Ariston  was  the  first,  then  Strataias  the  son  of 
Lois,  and  then  another  Ariston  q.  No  mention  is  made  of 
Polycarp.     The  one  account  is  as  untrustworthy  as  the  other. 

Before  we  arrange  the  facts  contained  in  our  second  autho- 
rity we  must  examine  the  proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
letter — or,  as  it  is  called,  the  Martyrium  of  Polycarp.  This 
Martyrium  has  only  one  external  testimony  worth  notice  with 
reg'ard  to  it,  namely  Eusebius  ^ ;  but  this  is  not  surprising,  as 
the  letter  is  not  connected  with  the  name  of  any  remarkable 
person,  and  does  not  deal  with  such  subjects  as  would  induce 
subsequent  writers  to  refer  to  it.  Eusebius  knew  the  work 
well.  He  has  quoted  the  greater  portion  of  it,  and  probably 
in  his  work  on  the  Martyrs  he  had  copied  the  whole  of  it. 
Yet  he  seems  to  have  made  no  inquiries  into  the  exact 'time 
at  which  it  was  written;  all  the  information  which  he  has 
given  amounting  to  this,  that  the  brethren  in  the  church  of 
the  S  my  means  laid  down  the  account  contained  in  the  letter. 
We  have  thus  the  certainty  only  that  it  was  written  before  the 
time  of  Eusebius. 

We  are  therefore  left  entirely  to  internal  CAidence.  It  is 
well  to  notice  here  the  question  which  lies  before  us.  The 
letter  professes  to  be  a  letter  from  the  church  in  Smyrna. 
The  author  of  the  letter  is  therefore  some  member  of  that 
church,  acting  simply  as  representative.  Most  think  that  we 
do  not  know  who  was  this  representative.  If  we  take  chapter 
XX.  as  genuine,  the  words  ixeixiiivKaixev  bia  tov  dSeA^ov  ?//xwy 
MdpKov  seem  to  me  to  point  out  Marcus  as  the  author, 
though  commentators  generally  regard  ^larcus  as  the  person 
through  whom  the  letter  was  conveyed,  and  Evarestus  as  the 
composer,  not  the  mere  penman,  as  I  take  it.     Let  Evarestus 

p  Sub  voce  TloKvKapiros.  He  repeats  the  statements  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
in  regard  to  the  visit  to  Rome. 

<i  Coiistit.  Apostol.  lib.  vii.  c.  46.  r.  '  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  15. 


Iir.]  POLYCAni'.  161 

or  ^Marcus  be  the  author,  we  are  equally  in  the  dark  with 
reg-ard  to  the  character  and  date  of  the  composer.  We  cannot 
thereloi'e  discuss  the  authorship  of  the  letter.  Provided  there 
is  no  g-laring  incongruity  in  the  letter  which  woidd  compel  us 
to  believe  that  it  was  not  written  in  Asia  Minor,  we  have  no 
means  of  testing  the  pretensions  of  this  letter  to  authorship 
by  the  known  and  well  authenticated  character  and  circum- 
stances of  the  author.  The  author  is  unknown.  We.  do  not 
know  what  we  ought  to  expect  from  him ;  and  therefore  we 
cannot  discover  by  internal  evidence  whether  any  production 
assigned  to  him  really  was  written  by  him  or  not. 

The  question  therefore  which  we  have  to  determine  is.  Is 
the  letter  what  it  professes  to  be  ?  Is  it  a  genuine  letter  sent 
from  the  Smyrneans  to  the  church  in  Philomelium  ?  when 
was  it  written  ?  and  what  historical  credit  is  to  be  attached  to 
it  ?  The  difficulty  of  these  questions  lies  in  this  cii'cumstanccj 
that  the  letter  contains  an  account  of  several  miracles,  and 
that  various  inconsistencies  and  improbabilities  are  connected 
with  these  miracles.  Now  the  letter  might  be  written  by 
the  Smyrnean  church,  and  yet  contain  the  narrative  of  these 
miracles;  for  the  Smyrneans  might  have  been  superstitious. 
Some  of  the  miracles  even  are  perfectly  possible.  Why  should 
we  deny  their  truth  if  there  was  sufficient  evidence  for  them  ? 
\Miat  then  are  we  to  do  with  this  miraculous  clement;  and 
how,  supposing  it  not  to  affect  the  question  of  authorship,  is 
it  to  affect  the  historical  credit  of  the  epistle  ? 

We  turn  to  the  letter  itself,  and  seek  for  evidence  as  to 
its  date  and  its  historical  value. 

Now  the  letter  itself  claims  to  have  been  written  by  eye- 
witnesses of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  and  to  have  been 
composed  before  the  conclusion  of  the  year  that  followed  that 
event,  (c.  i8.)  We  shall  examine  these  claims.  The  writer 
mentions  that  the  Smyrneans  were  eyewitnesses  in  three 
passages.  In  the  first  passage  the  writer  states  that  "  on 
Polycai^p  entering  the  stadium  a  voice  came  forth  from  heaven, 
saying,  '  Be  strong,  and  quit  thyself  manfully,  O  Polycarp,^ " 
Then  adds  the  writer,  "  And  no  one  saw  him  who  said  it ; 

VOL.  I.  M 


162  THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.  [Chap. 

but  those  of  our  number  who  were  present  heard  the  voice." 
The  plain  and  evident  intention  of"  the  writer  is  to  convey  the 
notion  that  there  was  a  real  heavenly  voice  heard  on  this  occa- 
sion. The  improbability  of  such  a  miracle  is  at  the  least  very 
great.  The  voice  however  may  have  been  that  of  a  Christian. 
But  there  is  a  great  improbability  about  its  being  the  voice  of 
a  Christian.  Would  a  Christian  dare  to  cry  so  loudly,  in  the 
midst  of  a  tumult  which  was  directed  solely  against  Chris- 
tians, that  other  men  could  hear  the  voice  distinctly?  And 
if  the  voice  was  that  of  a  Christian,  must  he  not  have 
belonged  to  the  church  of  the  Smyrneans,  and  would  he  have 
been  such  a  coward  and  deceiver  as  not  to  have  told  that  it 
was  he  that  cried  aloud,  and  thus  corrected  the  mistaken 
fancy  of  his  brethren  ?  We  do  not  say  that  such  a  deception 
among  Christians  is  impossible,  but  we  must  say  that  it  is  in 
the  highest  degree  improbable.  This  way  of  accounting  for 
the  supposed  miracle  we  reject ;  but  still  there  may  have  been 
some  sound,  which  the  Christians  there  construed  into  the 
reported  words.  But  then  this  other  question  meets  us  : 
What  took  the  Christian  brethren  to  the  stadium?  Were 
they  going  to  glut  their  eyes  with  the  sight  of  their  aged 
pastor  devoured  by  wild  beasts  ?  Was  there  not  a  strong  feel- 
ing prevalent  among  Christians  that  it  was  sinful  and  cruel  to 
attend  these  shows,  even  when  slaves  were  the  objects  of  the 
sport  ?  Nay,  would  not  the  church  itself  have  pronounced  a 
strong  condemnation  against  these  very  individuals,  for  thus 
being  found  in  a  place  consecrated  to  the  vilest  exhibitions  of 
idolatrous  worshij)  ?  But  perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  the 
games  were  over,  and  they  expected  that  they  would  simply 
see  Polycarp  tried.  This  plea  is  invalid.  The  stadium  was 
not  the  place  for  a  trial.  Polvcarp  was  sought,  according  to 
the  account,  expressly  at  the  request  of  the  very  people  who 
were  feasting  their  eyes  with  the  death  of  martyrs  by  wild 
beasts.  And  though  Polycarp  came  too  late  for  the  fight 
with  wild  beasts,  the  people  in  the  stadium  nevertheless 
expected  to  see  a  sight. 

We  have  thus  two  improljabilities.     It  is  not  very  jirobable 


III.]  POLY  CAR  p.  16:5 

that  there  was  any  voice  fn)m  heaven  ;  and  it  is  improbable 
that  there  were  Christians  in  the  place  to  hear  the  voice. 
Besides  this  the  writer  affirms  in  the  sentence  preceding-  the 
mention  of  the  heavenly  voice,  that  there  was  "  such  a  dis- 
tui'bance  in  the  stadium  that  no  one  could  be  heard."  The 
variations  in  the  text  of  the  chapter  in  which  the  narrative 
of  the  miracle  is  given  are  interesting.  The  Latin  version, 
which  on  many  accounts  may  be  regarded  as  the  best  form, 
makes  no  mention  of  the  impossibility  of  hearing.  It  says 
nothing  of  Christians  hearing*  the  voice.  It  says  merely 
"  those  who  were  in  the  arena  heard  the  voice :  none  of  the 
others  heard  it."  The  Greek,  as  we  have  quoted  it,  says 
"those  of  our  number  who  were  present."  Eusebius  has 
"many  of  our  number;"  and  Rufinus,  his  translator,  has  "  very 
many." 

The  next  passage  in  which  the  chiim  is  made  is  perhaps 
still  more  remarkable.  Polycarp,  the  writer  relates,  offered 
up  a  prayer,  and  then  the  firemen  lighted  the  fire.  Then  the 
writer  adds  :  "  But  a  great  flame  flashing  forth,  we  saw  a  great 
wonder  to  whom  it  was  granted  to  see,  who  also  were  pre- 
served to  proclaim  to  the  rest  what  took  place."  In  Eusebius^s 
copy  the  reading  is  more  naive,  and  therefore  more  like  the 
first  attempt.  Instead  of  the  ol  being  in  the  first  person,  it  is 
in  the  third :  "  We  saw  a  great  wonder,  and  they  were  pre- 
served to  tell  it."  Then  the  writer  relates  the  wonder  :  "  For 
the  fire  making  the  form  of  a  vault,  as  the  sail  of  a  ship  filled 
with  the  wind,  encircled  like  a  wall  the  body  of  the  martyr  ; 
and  it  was  in  the  middle,  not  as  flesh  burning,  but  as  bread 
toasted,  or  as  gold  and  silver  glowing  in  a  furnace.  And  we 
also  felt  such  a  sweet  smell,  as  if  of  frankincense  or  some  other 
of  the  precious  [spices]  aromas.  Then  at  length  the  iniquitous 
people,  seeing  that  the  body  could  not  be  consumed  by  the 
fire,  ordered  the  confector  [executioner]  to  go  up  to  him  and 
plunge  his  sword  into  him.  And  when  he  had  done  this,  a 
dove  and  a  great  quantity  of  blood  came  out,  so  as  to  put  out 
the  fire;  and  all  the  people  wondered  that  there  should  be 
such  a  difference  between  the  unbelieving  and  the  elect,  of 

M  2 


164  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

whom  he  was  one, — the  most  admirable  martyr  Polyearj)  liavinj:;; 
been  an  apostolic  and  prophetic  teacher  in  our  times^  and 
an  overseer  [bishop]  of  the  catholic  church  in  Smyrna.  For 
every  word  which  he  uttered  both  was  accomplished  and  shall 
be  accomplished  ^" 

Almost  every  line  of  this  extract  bears  marks  of  its  being- 
written  at  a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  death  of  Pulycarp. 
Let  us  glance  at  the  non-miraculous  element  in  it.  The  writer 
assures  us  that  the  whole  multitude  on  seeing  the  fire  extin- 
guished by  the  martyr's  blood  were  astonished  at  the  differ- 
ence l)etween  the  lanbelieving  and  the  elect.  Now  is  this  at  all 
likely  ?  AVhat  happened  to  an  unbeliever  which  could  in  any 
way  suggest  a  conti'ast  ?  and  how  could  they  have  regarded  the 
putting  out  of  the  fire  by  the  martyr's  blood  in  any  other 
light  than  that  in  which  we  must  regard  it — a  most  senseless 
divine  interposition  to  make  a  display  but  to  accomplish 
nothing  at  all  ?  The  martyr  was  stabbed  to  death  if  he  was 
not  burned.  And  then  is  it  likely  that  the  heathen  would 
have  looked  upon  the  miracle  in  any  such  light  as  is  here 
represented  *  ?  The  remarkable  circumstance  about  even  the 
most  authenticated  of  Christ's  miracles  was  that  they  failed 
to  produce  on  many  the  right  impression  with  regard  to  his 
mission  and  character. 

Then  the  part  added  to  this  is  iitterly  out  of  place.  One 
of  the  elect,  the  writer  gravely  tells  the  people  to  whom  he 
writes,  was  Polycarp — as  if  they  did  not  know,  as  if  they  had 
not  written  to  ask  more  particularly  about  the  martyrdom, 
having  just  heard  the  most  general  rumours.  And  not  only 
so,  but  the  writer  goes  into  particulars.  The  church  in  Philo- 
melium  writes  to  the  church  in  Smyrna,  asking  an  account 
of  the  martyrdom  of  one  of  their  overseers ;  and  the  churcli 
in  Smyrna  in  its  reply  gravely  informs  its  sister  church 
that  Polycarp  was  an  overseer,  not  in  ovr  church,  but  in  the 

"  cc.  15,  16. 

»  Jortin  (Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  313,  vol.  i.)  shows  how  the 
miracle  would  probably  create  an  unfavourable  opinion  in  the  minds  of 
heathens. 


Ill]  roLYCARP.  i«;:. 

catholic  church  in  Smyrna.  Then,  as  we  shall  see  imnnecli- 
ately,  this  letter  is  supposed  to  have  heen  written  before  the 
end  of  the  first  year  after  the  martyrdom ;  yet  the  church  of 
Smyrna  vouchsafes  to  the  ignorant  church  in  Philomelium  the 
important  information  that  he  flourished  in  "  our  times/'  and 
was  an  apostolic  teacher. 

Besides  these  objections,  there  are  the  other  two  objections 
which  have  been  urg-ed  against  the  preceding.  First,  that  it 
is  extremely  unlikely  that  there  were  any  Christians  in  the 
stadium ;  and  secondly,  that  if  they  had  been  there,  they  could 
never  have  seen  what  it  is  pretended  they  saw.  It  might 
indeed  be  alleged  that  some  parts  of  the  narrative  may  have 
been  exaggerations  of  the  fancy  of  the  spectators — that  a  wind 
blowing  may  have  turned  the  fire  from  Polycarp;  that  the 
fragrance  came  from  the  plants  and  shrubs  which  had  been 
collected  to  cause  the  fire ;  that  the  herbs  may  have  had  some 
power  in  preserving  the  colour  of  the  body  fresh  j  and  that, 
the  wind  still  blowing,  there  was  the  remarkable  coincidence 
of  the  extinction  of  the  fire  and  the  gush  of  blood  from  the 
martyr's  body.  This  may  be  possible,  and  the  eyes  of  the 
Christians  may  have  been  a  little  dazzled  by  the  fire,  and  so 
stunned  by  seeing  the  sword  enter  the  side  of  their  pastor, 
that  they  twinkled ;  and  the  Christians  regarded  the  twinkle 
as  the  flight  of  a  dove  "  from  the  pierced  body  of  Polycarp.  If 
this  then  were  the  case — and  we  could  resolve  all  the  circum- 
stances, narrated  by  the  writer  in  such  a  way  that  there  can 
be  no  doidit  the  Smyrneans  regarded  them  as  miraculous, 
into  mere  natural  coincidences — we  are  perfectly  sure  of  this, 
that  the  evidence  of  witnesses  who  so  distorted  the  facts  of 
sense  is  not  worth  much.  We  should  be  compelled  to  an 
entire  rejection  of  the  historical  character  of  the  whole  letter. 

u  Those  who  are  inclined  to  trust  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  either  refuse 
to  contemplate  each  particular  circumstance  minutely  (as  Maurice  ?),  or  they 
have  many  ways  of  accounting  for  the  statements.  Thus  Evans  (in  a  note) : 
"  The  original  gives  these  circumstances  a  miraculous  air.  They  are  readily 
accounted  for.  I  have  omitted,  with  Eusebius,  the  story  of  the  dove,  which 
even  if  true  will  not  appear  wonderful  to  such  as  have  seen  those  birds  fly 
swoop  toward  a  fire  and  out  again."  (p.  90.) 


1G6  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATUKIiS.  [Chap. 

AVe  may  reniiirk  by  the  way  that  the  whole  of  this  passage, 
the  duve  alone  being  omitted,  is  to  be  found  in  Ensebius ;  and 
so  the  objections  lie  against  his  text  as  well  as  against  the 
common  text.  The  Latin  translation  however,  though  quite 
as  fond  of  miracles  as  the  Greek  text,  does  not  put  forward 
its  writer  as  an  eyewitness  here.  Its  words  are  cautious : 
"Those  saw  these  wonders,^''  it  says,  "which  the  Divine  com- 
mand had  ordered  to  see  it,  that  they  might  relate  what  they 
had  seen  to  the  rest.^^ 

The  third  passage  in  which  the  writer  mentions  eyewit- 
nesses is  a  continuation  of  the  preceding.  Polycarp  was  dead. 
The  history  of  his  body  now  remains.  The  devil,  it  seems, 
jealous  of  the  crowTi  of  martyrdom  which  Polycarp  had 
received,  resolved  to  make  a  last  effort  to  injure  him.  He 
endeavoured  to  prevent  his  body  from  getting  into  the  hands 
"  of  us,  though  many  desired  to  have  it  and  to  communicate 
with  his  holy  flesh  "•'."  "  The  devil  therefore"  (Eusebius  says 
simply  "  some")  suggested  to  Nicetas,  the  father  of  Herod  and 
the  brother  of  Alee,  to  entreat  the  ruler  not  to  give  the 
body  for  burial,  '  lest,'  says  he,  '  leaving  the  crucified  one, 
they  begin  to  worship  this  one.''  And  they  said  these  things 
at  the  suggestion  and  urgent  entreaty  of  the  Jews,  who  also 
watched,  while  we  were  about  to  take  it  out  of  the  fire,  being 
ignorant  that  we  will  not  be  able  ever  to  leave  Christ,  who 
suffered  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole  world  of  the  saved  [the 
blameless  one  for  sinners] ,  or  even  to  worship  any  other.  For 
Him,  being  Son  of  God,  we  worship;  but  the  martyrs,  as  disciples 
and  imitators  of  the  Lord,  we  love  worthily  on  account  of  their 
imsurpassable  good  wnll  to  their  own  king  and  teacher,  whose 
fellow  partakers  and  fellow  disciples  may  it  be  granted  to  us 
to  be.  The  centurion  therefore,  seeing  the  rivalry  caused  by 
the  Jews,  placed  him  in  the  midst  of  the  fire  and  burned  him. 
And  thus  we  afterwards,  gathering  up  his  bones,  more  precious 
than  precious  stones  and  more  tried  than  gold,  laid  them  in 
a  suitable  place.  And  here,  as  it  will  be  in  our  power  to 
assemble  in  joy  and  gladness,  God  will  grant  us  the  privilege 
'   Latin,  "  liis  holy  ashes." 


III.]  POLYCARP.  1<>7 

of  celebrating  the  birthday  of  his  martyrdom,  both  in  memory 
of  tliose  who  have  wrestled  before,  and  for  the  exercise  and 
prejiaration  of  those  who  are  hereafter  to  wrestle^/'  It  is 
the  last  sentence  from  which  critics  have  inferred  that  the 
letter  was  written  in  the  course  of  the  first  year  after  the 
martyrdom.  The  Smyrnean  church  had  not  yet  celebrated 
the  birthday  of  the  martyr,  as  the  day  of  his  death  was  called  ; 
and  as  it  is  supposed  that  they  would  do  this  on  the  very 
first  recurrence  of  the  day,  the  inference  plainly  is  that  the 
day  had  not  yet  recurred. 

Let  us  examine  the  particulars  of  this  narrative.  At  the 
time  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polyearp  a  fierce  persecution  was 
going-  on  against  the  Christians.  It  was  a  persecution  pro- 
duced not  1:»y  any  edict  of  the  emperor,  but  by  the  bitter 
hatred  of  all  classes.  The  Christians  too  were  accused  of  the 
most  fearful  crimes.  Every  kind  of  disgraceful  deed  and 
practice  was  imputed  to  them  and  credited  by  the  people,  so 
that  it  was  sufficient  for  a  man  to  confess  himself  a  Christian 
to  be  condemned.  And  yet  at  this  very  time,  according  to 
our  narrativ^e,  Jews  and  Christians  openly  quarrel  about  the 
body  of  a  Christian,  and  at  last  the  Christians  have  the 
better  of  the  quarrel.  Is  this  credible?  How  different  are 
the  statements  in  the  so-called  Second  Apology  of  Justin 
Martyr !  Urbicus  condemns  a  man  for  being  a  Christian. 
Lucius,  a  Christian,  interferes  in  his  behalf.  He  also  is  con- 
demned. Another  bold  Christian  shared  a  like  fate.  And 
Vettius  Epagathus,  in  the  persecution  at  Lyons,  was  in  like 
manner  condemned.  Is  it  likely  that  a  mob  would  be  more 
considerate^? 

Then  the  reason  assigned  for  the  anxiety  either  of  heathens 
or  Jews  to  prevent  the  Christians  getting  the  body,  is 
astonishing.  What  did  a  heathen  care  whom  the  Christians 
worshipped,  if  they  only  worshipped  Caesar  along  with  his 
god  or  gods  ?  Refuse  to  acknowledge  that  the  civil  power  of 
the  emperor  extended  to  religion,  and  then  the  heathen  by 

»  c.  17. 

*  Euseb  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  i.  ;  and  in  Eouth,  Eel.  Sacr.  vol.  i.  p.  297. 


168  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

his  creed  was  bound  to  ])uiiish  to  death.  But  otlierwise  the 
worship  of  Christ  or  Poljcarp  was  all  the  same.  Still  more 
absurd  is  it  to  attribute  such  a  reason  to  the  Jews.  The  Jews 
would  let  the  Christians  worship  any  one,  provided  their  law 
Avas  not  insulted  by  representing-  the  crucified  one  as  their 
promised  Messiah,  and  they  would  rather  have  had  Christians 
worship  Polycarp  than  Christ.  And  then,  to  crown  the  ab- 
surdity, the  centurion,  to  settle  the  dispute  between  the  Jews 
and  Christians,  burns  the  body  in  the  fire  which  the  blood  of 
Polycarp  had  already  extinguished.  Of  course  it  is  possible 
to  imagine  that  another  fire  was  lighted  for  the  purpose ;  but 
the  narrative  intimates  no  such  thing,  and  by  the  use  of  the 
article  tov  irvpos  leaves  the  reader  to  understand  that  it  was 
the  fire  previously  mentioned. 

Besides  these  insuperable  objections  there  are  other  reasons 
for  regarding  the  whole  of  this  passage  as  the  work  of  an  age 
much  later  than  that  of  Polj^carp.  In  a  production  of  which 
the  age  is  known,  our  only  method  of  testing  its  statements 
is  comparison  with  and  authentication  by  contemporary  docu- 
ments. Now  in  the  passage  quoted  the  following  things  can- 
not be  paralleled  from  any  contemporary  writer,  i.  We  have 
no  instance  of  any  one  collecting  relies  at  this  time,  still 
less  of  communicating  with  holy  flesh.  This  last  expres- 
sion, I  suppose,  means  taking  the  eucharist  in  the  company 
of  the  bones,  and  thus  as  it  were  taking  it  in  company  of  the 
martyr^.  Such  a  practice  is  not  described  in  any  writing 
contemporary  with,  or  a  considerable  time  subsequent  to,  the 
age  of  Polycarp.  2.  We  have  no  instance  from  a  con- 
temporary writing  of  the  day  of  martyrdom  being  called  the 
birthday  of  the  martyrs,  or  of  any  church  celebrating  that 
day 2.  This  custom  unc^uestionably  began  at  a  period  not 
very  long  after  this,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that 
it  had  yet  begun. 

The  result  of  the  examination  of  these  three  passages  is, 
the  most  decided  doubt  as  to  the  claims  made.  And  if  this 
be  the  case,  we  must  suppose  the  writing  either  to  be  a 
>  See  note  of  Valesius  in  Eu.«.  Hein.  '  Ibid. 


III.]  POLYCAJiP.  \m 

forgery  in  the  name  of  the  church,  or  that  the  church 
Avrote  the  letter  long*  after  the  death  of  Polycarp,  or  that 
the  epistle  was  written  soon  after  his  death,  but  was  con- 
siderably interpolated  afterwards. 

The  only  other  indication  of  a  date  has  been  found  by 
Valesius  in  the  sentence,  "  You  have  requested  a  more  par- 
ticular account  of  what  took  place,^^  from  which  he  infers 
that  the  members  in  the  church  in  Philomelium  had  merely 
heard  of  the  martjrdom,  and  consequently  that  some  time 
had  elapsed  before  they  received  the  written  account. 

The  hypothesis  by  which  we  can  give  the  most  probable 
account  of  this  production  is,  that  it  really  was,  as  it  pro- 
fesses to  be,  a  letter  from  the  church  in  Smj-rna ;  that  it  was 
a  short  summary  of  the  principal  circumstances  of  the  martyr- 
dom ;  and  that  as  this  letter  went  down  to  posterity  it 
gathered  length  and  absurdities.  The  reason  for  such  an 
hypothesis  is,  that  there  are  so  contradictory  statements  in  the 
narrative,  that  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  the  same  writer  to 
have  composed  the  whole.  We  have  already  had  a  remark- 
able instance.  We  have  seen  the  writer  describe  the  per- 
formance of  a  miracle  to  prevent  the  martyr  from  being  put 
to  death  by  burning;  then  immediately  after  he  was  put  to 
death  by  stabbing,  no  miracle  now  interfering;  and  at 
last  the  body  that  was  committed  to  the  flames  in  vain 
is  described,  when  dead,  as  put  into  a  fire  which  had  been 
extinguished,  and  then  really  burned.  We  need  not  insist 
on  more  of  these.  One  alone  will  suffice.  From  the  extracts 
we  have  given,  it  will  be  remarked  that  the  writer  describes 
the  most  minute  particulars  of  the  martyrdom ;  yet  towards 
the  close  of  the  martyrdom  we  learn  that  the  members  of 
the  Philomeliensian  church  were  anxious  to  have  the  par- 
ticulars, but  the  brethren  in  Smyrna  say  to  them,  "  We  for 
the  present  have  pointed  out  the  occurrences  summarily  [k-n\ 
K€(f>a\ai(o)  through  our  brother  Mark^.^^ 

In  our  hypothesis  we  have  fixed  on  no  date ;  but  as  such 
a  description   woidd  naturally  be  written  not  very  long  after 


170  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

the  event,  we  may  reckon  a  few  years  after  the  death  of 
Poly  carp  as  the  most  probable  period  of  its  production. 
This  is  rendered  likely  by  the  circumstance  mentioned  in 
the  end  of  the  letter,  that  there  was  a  coj)y  of  it  belonging 
to  Irena?us ;  a  statement  which  is  likely  to  be  true.  It  is  more- 
over natural  that  the  account  should  be  written  shortly  after 
the  event,  and  the  words  appealed  to  by  A'alesius  certainly 
bear  out  this  supposition.  If  this  assumption  be  correct,  the 
following  statements  in  it  are  clear  marks  of  interpolation. 

1.  The  inscription  is  interpolated.  It  runs  thus:  "The 
church  of  God  which  sojourns  in  Smj^rna,  to  the  church 
of  God  which  sojourns  in  Philomelium,  and  to  all  the  parishes 
of  the  holy  and  catholic  church  in  every  place,^^  &c.  The 
last  clause  is  one  of  the  most  absurd  that  could  be  well 
conceived.  Here  is  a  letter  addressed  especially  to  one  small 
church,  and  in  general  to  aU  the  churches  in  all  the  world. 
The  phraseology  also  is  posterior  to  the  date  which  we  have 
assumed  as  the  most  probable.  Eusebius  seems  to  have  read 
something  else,  or  there  is  something  wrong  in  his  text; 
for  though  he  quotes  the  clause  which  has  now  been  trans- 
lated, yet  he  says  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  sojourners 
throughout  Pontus.  Philomelium,  according  to  our  best 
information,  was  not  in  Pontus ;  and  how  Eusebius  got  hold 
of  this  notion  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  adoption  of  such 
an  insignificant  town  as  Philomelium  for  the  residence  of  the 
addressed  church,  is  a  point  distinctly  in  favour  of  such  a 
letter  being  written.  Some  indeed  read  Philadelphia,  but 
the  weight  of  evidence  goes  with  Philomelium. 

2.  In  chap.  ii.  the  doctrine  that  man  merits  redemption 
by  his  own  suffering  is  mentioned :  "  Buying-  back  eternal 
punishment  through  one  hour.^^  Such  a  doctrine  is  unknown 
among  writers  contemporary^  with  Polycarp,  though  we  find 
it  upwards  of  half  a  century  after  in  Tertullian. 

3.  In  the  same  chapter  the  writer  saj-s  :  "  The  martyrs 
saw  with  the  eyes  of  the  heart  what  good  things  are 
reserved  for  those  who  suffer,  what  neither  ear  hath  heard 
nor  eye  seen,  nor  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man ;  but  the 


Ill]  POLY  CARP.  171 

Lord  pointed  them  to  them  (the  martyrs),  who  were  no  longer 
men,  hut  already  angels."     This  surely  smells  of  a  later  ag-e. 

4.  The  following'  piece  of  the  narrative  is  full  of  impro- 
babilities :  "  When  the  pyre  was  prepared,  taking  off  all  his 
g-arments  and  loosening  his  girdle,  he  tried  also  to  take  off 
his  sandals  ;  not  doing  this  before,  because  each  of  the  faith- 
ful was  always  eagerly  endeavouring  to  touch  his  skin  sooner 
than  the  other,  for  he  had  been  adorned  with  every  good 
on  account  of  his  good  life,  even  before  his  martyrdom. 
Then  the  instruments  prepared  for  the  pyre  were  forthmth 
placed  round  him.  But  when  they  were  going  to  nail  him 
he  said,  '  Leave  me  as  I  am ;  for  He  who  gave  me  power  to 
endure  the  fire  will  also  grant  me  power  to  remain  unshaken 
on  the  pyre  without  the  security  3'ou  give  with  3'our  nails.' 
They  therefore  did  not  nail  him,  but  bound  him^." 

If  the  circumstances  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polj^cai^p  be 
recollected,  the  improbability  of  most  of  these  details  will 
not  fail  to  strike  every  one.  He  is  sought  out  and  brought 
to  the  stadium  in  the  midst  of  a  tumultuous  assemblage  of 
heathens  and  Jews.  The  governor  refuses  to  set  the  lion 
upon  him,  because  the  lion-fights  are  over.  In  a  moment 
the  rabble  get  sticks  from  all  quarters;  but  with  a  for- 
bearance that  is  utterly  marvellous  they  allow  the  faithful 
to  gather  round  the  old  man,  and  to  do  everything  but 
worship  him.  Then  it  is  contrary  to  all  that  we  know  of 
the  history  of  Christians  to  suppose  that  in  the  time  of 
Polycarp  the  faithful  fancied  any  virtue  lay  in  the  touch  of 
a  martyr's  skin.  But  here  this  nonsensical  belief  is  put  in 
the  strongest  form.  Polycarp's  skin  had  a  marvellous  effect 
even  before  his  death.  Every  blessing  flowed  from  it.  So 
I  understand  the  words  liavTi  yap  kcAw  iKeKoafxrjTo.  Eusebius 
has  a  different  reading,  the  connection  of  which  with  the 
touching  of  the  skin  is  not  so  evident.  He  reads,  "  For  he 
had  been  adorned  in  everything  on  account  of  his  good 
conduct  even  before  old  age.''  "Adorned  in  everything"  then 
means  honoured  in  every  way.     Possil;ly  the  narrator  may 

''    CC.   I  ^„    I  4. 


172  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FA  THE  US.  [Chap. 

have  meant  to  say  tliat  Polycarp  had  not  been  in  the  habit 
of  undoing'  his  sandals,  ])ccaiise  Christians  out  of  desire  to 
touch  him  had  done  this  for  him.  He  had  received  every 
attention  in  his  lifetime  on  account  of  his  good  conduct. 
The  last  part  of  the  extract  also  is  improbable,  but  very  far 
from  impossible.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  rabble  would  give 
Polycarp  his  choice,  and  especially  that  they  would  spare  him 
the  pain  which  nailing  him  would  cause. 

5.  In  the  next  chapter<=  occurs  a  prayer  which  Polycarp 
offered  up  when  tied  to  the  pile.  It  runs  thus  :  "  O  Lord  God 
Almighty,  the  Father  of  thy  beloved  and  blessed  child  Jesus 
Christ,  through  whom  we  have  received  the  full  knowledge 
of  Thee,  the  God  of  angels  and  powers 'J,  and  of  the  whole  crea- 
tion, and  of  the  whole  race  of  the  just  who  live  before  Thee,  I 
bless  Thee  that  Thou  hast  thought  me  worthy  of  this  day  and 
hour  to  take  my  part  in  the  number  of  thy  witnesses,  in  the 
cup  of  thy  Christ,  for  the  resurrection  of  eternal  life,  both  of 
soul  and  body,  in  the  incorruption  of  a  holy  spirit,  in  which 
[or,  among  whom]  may  I  be  accepted  before  Thee  this  day  in 
a  rich  and  acceptable  sacrifice,  even  as  Thou  the  lieless  and 
true  God  hast  previously  prepared,  manifested,  and  fulfilled. 
Wherefore  also  I  praise  Thee  for  all ;  I  bless  Thee,  I  glorify 
Thee  with  the  eternal  and  heavenly  Jesus  Christ,  thy  beloved 
child,  with  whom  to  Thee  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the  glory 
now  and  for  the  ages  to  come.  Amen.^'  As  might  be 
expected,  Eusebius^s  version  of  this  prayer  differs  in  some 
points — but  especially  in  the  last  sentence,  which  is  as  follows 
in  the  historian  :  "  I  glorify  Thee  through  the  eternal  High 
Priest  Jesus  Christ,  thy  beloved  child,  through  whom  and  along 
with  Him  in  the  Holy  Sj)irit  be  glory,"  &c.  The  Latin 
version  differs  greatly  from  both  Greek  texts,  agreeing  more 
nearly  with  Eusebius.  Who  were  the  reporters  of  this 
prayer?  Not  the  Christians,  as  we  have  seen,  and  surely 
not  the  heathens.  If  the  writers  had  informed  us  on  what 
authority  they  had  regarded  this  prayer  as  the  prayer  of 
Polycarp,  we  might  have  been  satisfied;  but  in  the  want  of 

"■  c.  14. 

•^   Tlie  Latin  begins  the  prayer,  ''0  God  of  angels,  O  God  of  archangels." 


III.]  I'OLYCARP.  "  17;{ 

such  inforinatiou  it  looks  more  like  the  work  of  another 
person,  or  at  least  the  expansion  of  some  utterance  of  the 
martyr.  At  all  events  the  difference  between  Eusebius, 
the  Latin  translation,  and  the  Greek  text,  prevents  us  from 
regarding"  any  one  as  completely  correct.  Some  of  them 
must  be  incorrect,  and  we  have  no  means  of  determinin>j 
if  any  of  them  is  correct. 

6.  Chapter  twenty-first,  which  gives  a  particular  account 
of  the  date  of  the  martyrdom,  is  open  to  serious  objections. 
We  translate  it :  "  Now  the  blessed  Polycarp  bore  his  testi- 
mony on  the  second  day  of  the  first  part  of  the  month 
Xanthicus,  the  seventh  dav  before  the  calends  of  May,  on 
the  great  sabbath,  at  eight  o^clock.  But  he  was  captured  by 
Herod  in  the  high-priesthood  of  Philip  the  Trallian  and  the 
procousulship  of  Statins  Quadratus,  and  in  the  eternal  king- 
ship of  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory,  honour,  greatness, 
eternal  throne,  from  generation  to  generation.  Amen.'"  It  is 
a  serious  objection  against  this  chapter  that  Eusebius  makes 
no  mention  of  it.  This  of  all  chapters  would  have  caught  the 
eye  of  the  historian  and  ehronologist ;  and  when  we  find  that 
he  takes  no  notice  of  it,  we  are  led  to  infer  that  it  was  not 
in  his  copy,  or,  as  is  more  likely,  that  he  distrusted  it. 
Besides,  the  particularity  of  the  date  is  out  of  character  with 
its  being  a  contemporary  wu-iting.  Then  we  must  suppose 
that  the  writers  mention  the  month  Xanthicus  for  the  benefit 
of  the  church  in  Philomelium,  and  the  seventh  before  the 
calends  of  May  for  the  parishes  throughout  the  whole  world. 
Moreover  we  can  scarcely  conceive  the  people  of  Philomelium 
to  have  been  ignorant  who  was  proconsul  diu-ing  their  own 
days  ;  and  yet,  if  the  letter  was  written  soon  after  the  death 
of  Polycai-p,  the  writer  evidently  presumed  them  ignorant  of 
such  a  fact.  Perhaps  this  also  was  for  the  benefit  of  the 
whole  world.  Then,  "  in  the  eternal  kingship  of  Jesus  Christ^' 
is  a  mode  of  dating  which,  as  far  as  I  can  trace,  meets  us 
first  in  the  martyrdom  of  Pionios,  the  transcriber  of  this 
letter,  and  indeed  may  have  been  invented  by  him.  We 
may  remark  too,  that   notwithstanding  the   particularity   of 


174  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  [Cuap. 

the  chronolog-y  we  are  left  in  doubt  or  difficulty  with  regard 
to  some  points.  Thus  the  second  day  of  the  month  Xantliicus 
is,  according  to  Usher,  the  twenty-sixth  of  March.  The 
seventh  before  the  calends  of  May  is  the  twenty-fifth  of  April. 
Therefore  some  adopt  the  reading-  "'A-rrptWCon-  found  in  a  writer 
of  Sicilian  Fasti.  Then  we  are  ignorant  wliether  the  writer 
meant  "  at  eight  o'clock"  for  Philomelinm  or  for  the  whole 
world.  If  for  the  first,  then  it  is  our  eight  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, according  to  Jacobson.  If  it  is  for  the  whole  world,  then 
it  is  our  two  o'clock  p.  m.  Taking  all  these  things  into  consi- 
deration, and  we  might  add  a  few  more,  we  reject  this  chapter 
unhesitatingly  as  being  the  work  of  an  interpolator.  It  was 
most  probably  inserted  when  the  church  began  the  celebration 
of  the  day  of  Polycarp's  martyrdom,  or  shortly  after  this. 

The  concluding  sentences  of  the  Martyrium  throw  some 
light  on  the  interpolations.  The  names  of  the  transcribers 
are  there  recorded.  Each  one  seems  to  have  written  his  name 
after  his  predecessors  on  copying-  the  letter,  Irenseus  excepted. 
"  Gains  transcribed  the  letter  from  the  copy  of  Irenseus,  the 
disciple  of  Poly  carp,  who  also  lived  in  the  same  society  as 
Irenseus ;  and  I  Socrates  in  Corinth,  transcribed  it  from 
the  copy  of  Gains.  Grace  be  with  all.  But  I  again, 
Pionios,  wrote  it  from  the  preceding,  after  having  sought 
them  out  again,  the  blessed  Polycarp  having  made  them 
manifest  to  me  in  a  revelation,  even  as  I  shall  make  plain 
in  what  follows,  having  collected  them  when  already  they 
had  almost  faded  away  through  time." 

The  writer  does  not  say  what  he  means  by  f/iew,  but  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  he  means  the  whole  narrative.  Here 
then  is  the  source  of  the  interpolations.  The  text  was  im- 
proved as  it  went  through  the  hands  of  transcribers,  and 
Pionios  claims  the  credit  of  re-discovering  the  old  copy  by 
means  of  personal  communications  with  Poh'carp.  Many  of 
the  wonderftil  parts  of  the  narrative  would  no  doubt  receive 
embellishments  from  the  revelation  of  Polycarp  to  Pionios. 
Hefele  is  inclined  to  cut  off  this  part  as  spurious.  Of  course 
it  is.     The  writer  of  it  does  not  pretend  that  it  is  pai't  of  the 


III.]  rOLYCARP.  l7o 

letter.  He  tells  us  that  he  is  a  transcriber  and  re-fashioner. 
Besides  this,  Hefele  supposes  the  clause  about  revelation  has 
been  inserted  to  give  weig"ht  to  a  spurious  Martyrium  of 
Polycarp  ascribed  to  Pionios.  But  his  reasoning'  is  not  sound. 
He  depends  upon  the  words  'as  I  shall  show  in  what  follows  / 
but  what  Pionios  is  to  show,  is  not,  as  Hefele  supposes,  the 
substance  of  the  revelation,  but  the  mode  in  which  Polycarp 
made  the  revelation,  and  the  reality  of  the  martyr^'s  appear- 
ance to  him. 

Eusebius  makes  a  statement  with  regard  to  this  letter  which 
also  deserves  notice  in  this  connection.  He  says  that  "  in  the 
same  writing  with  regard  to  Polycarp  were  also  conjoined 
other  martyrdoms  which  took  place  in  the  same  Smyrna 
about  the  same  time  as  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp ^/^  and  he 
mentions  especially  the  martyrdom  of  one  Pionios,  who,  he 
says,  was  distinguished  among  the  martyrs  of  those  days. 
Some  critics  have  taken  this  passage  as  implying  that  the 
martvrdoms  of  these  persons  were  described  in  the  letter  of 
the  Smyrnean  church.  There  certainly  seems  some  reason  for 
this  supposition,  for  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Smyrnean  church 
would  omit  an  account,  or  at  least  a  brief  allusion  to  occur- 
rences, of  so  deeply  interesting  a  nature.  Yet  the  word  (tw- 
rj-To,  tied  together,  is  so  unusual,  and  designates  so  exactly 
an  external  connection,  that  one  is  strongly  impelled  to  the 
belief  that  the  historian  refers  to  some  writing  in  which  various 
martyrdoms  were  collected,  and  perhaps  connected  by  a  few  sen- 
tences from  the  collector.  In  favour  of  this  too  is  the  absence 
of  any  such  notices  in  our  letter,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us. 

We  thus  reach  the  knowledge  of  the  circumstance,  that  at 
an  early  period  some  of  the  Christians  began  to  feel  an  interest 
in  these  martyrdoms,  and  collected  them.  It  is  easy  to  see, 
that  with  the  loose  notions  about  authorship  and  historical 
authority  then  prevalent,  and  through  an  anxiety  to  make  his 
book  complete,  an  editor  would  set  down  into  his  work  all 
the  narratives  or  anecdotes  which  he  could  collect  about  his 
martyrs.     Supposing  that  he  had  just  notions  of  discrimi- 

"  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  15. 


176  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FAT  HERS.  [Chap. 

nating  what  bulonf^ed  to  one  author  and  what  to  another,  he 
would  have  simply  then  placed  his  additions  at  the  side,  as 
we  place  them  in  footnotes ;  but  the  next  transcriber  would 
without  hesitation  have  incorporated  these  notes  with  the 
text.  So  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  character  of 
the  letter  as  it  now  stands  both  compel  us  to  believe  that  it  has 
received  many  additions  and  undergone  chang-es.  And  indeed 
we  may  perceive  in  this  letter  how  the  imagination  of  an  editor 
acted  in  the  expansion  of  his  theme.  One  of  the  interpolators 
plainly  had  in  his  mind  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  in  making 
his  additions.  The  circumstances  are  necessarily  different,  but 
the  resemblances  are  nevertheless  so  close  that  we  cannot 
account  for  them  in  any  other  way.  We  have  first  Polycai-p 
prophesying  that  he  must  be  burned  alive  three  days  before 
his  capture ^  Then  we  find  the  Irenarch^s  name  to  be  Herod. 
Then  the  horsemen  and  persecutors  (Stwyjutrai)  came  out  against 
him  running,  as  against  a  robber.  The  day  on  which  the}-  did 
so  was  the  preparation  day  [rfj  7:apaaK€vfi) ,  Friday;  and  the 
day  on  which  he  was  led  to  the  city  was  the  great  Sabbath, 
that  is,  the  sabbath  preceding  the  Passover.  In  coming  into 
the  city  he  rides  part  of  the  way  on  an  ass.  Perhaps  also 
we  should  notice  here,  that  when  he  cannot  be  burned  he  is 
stabbed,  and  blood  gushes  out  S. 

The  question  then  comes.  How  do  these  intei-polations  and 
changes  affect  the  historical  character  of  the  work  ?  In  our 
opinion  they  completely  damage  it.  We  have  no  security 
for  any  one  fact  in  it,  because  we  have  no  means  of  elimi- 
nating what  was  written  by  the  church  in  Smyrna  from 
what  was  fabricated  by  Pionios  and  other  transcribers.  The 
only  help  is  from  internal  evidence.  And  yet  it  is  scarcely 
conceivable  that  all  which  was  interpolated  should  outrage 
probability,  and  thus  manifest  its  authorship.  Such  writers 
as  these  martjrologists  would  insert  occasionally  what  is  very 

'  Matt.  xxvi.  2. 

8  Hilgenfeld  has  remarked  this  resemblance  (Paschastreit,  pp.  245,  246),  to 
show  that  the  writer  followed  the  Sjrnoptic  Gospels  ;  but  the  piercing  of  the 
side  and  the  gushing  out  of  blood  are  mentioned  onh'  in  John,  a  circumstance 
which  Baur  has  noticed  :  Christenthum,  p.  526. 


III.]  POLYCARP.  177 

probable,  simply  bet.'uuse  g'iving'  reins  to  their  fancy  they 
might  occasionally  stumble  upon  probabilities.  If  they  were 
base  forg-ers  and  intentionall}^  introduced  downrig*ht  lies,  they 
would  be  still  more  certain  to  give  a  colour  of  truth  to  the 
miraculous  by  sober  narratives.  We  therefore  decline  to  say 
what  is  true  in  the  Martyrium  of  Polycarp,  nor  do  we  pretend 
to  define  the  exact  position  even  of  the  church  in  Smyrna  as 
an  historical  authority.  Ignorant  entirely  of  the  exact  period 
at  which  the  church  wrote,  and  sure  that  this  first  letter  was 
swelled  by  large  additions  from  various  hands,  we  think  that 
we  have  no  security  for  the  truth  of  any  one  of  the  statements 
contained  in  it.  And  we  are  confirmed  in  this,  when  we  see 
the  attempts  made  by  Tillemont,  Jortin,  and  others,  to  recon- 
cile the  various  statements  or  elicit  the  truth. 

This  Martyrium  has  been  praised  above  all  the  others  as  a 
splendid  monument  of  antiquity  '.  We  cannot  assign  it  this 
high  place.  There  is  a  certain  simplicity  in  it,  a  straight- 
forwardness of  narrative,  and  on  the  whole  a  rather  pious  feel- 
ing; but  its  great  merit  lies  in  its  being  so  widel}'  different 
from  most  of  the  martyria.  There  is  comparatively  little  of 
the  miraculous  in  it.  There  is  much  less  of  nonsense.  There 
is  an  air  of  greater  probability  about  the  most  part  of  the 
narrative,  and  especially  the  cireumytauces  of  the  flight  and 
capture  of  Polycarp  are  so  unusual  and  so  naively  related,  that 
one  does  not  like  to  doubt  their  truth.  There  is  occasionally 
a  touch  of  pathos  in  the  relation  which  we  can  scarcely  fancy 
to  have  come  from  the  pen  of  a  man  given  to  revelations  from 
his  overheated  fancy.  We  leave  the  reader  however  to  judge 
for  himself.     As  we  have  said,  not  one  of  the  facts  has  proper 

f  Bull  remarks  on  this  letter,  "De  qua  Epistola  nemo  doctus  hucusque 
dubitavit,  nemo  cum  ratione  dubitare  poterit."  (Def.  Fid.  Nicien.  ii.  3,  9  ) 
Scaliger  praises  it  in  extravagant  language.  Notwithstanding,  its  genuine- 
ness was  called  in  question  by  Milton,  and  more  recently  by  Semler,  (Baum- 
garten's  Untersuchung  Theologischer  Streitigkeiten,  zweiter  band,  heraus- 
gegeben  von  D.  Johann  S.domo  Semler,  p.  18,)  and  several  of  its  statements 
have  been  doubted  by  Walch  (Bibliotheca  Patristica,  p.  23)  ;  Kortholt,  men- 
tioned by  Walch  ;  Jortin  in  his  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  p. 
304;  and  Middleton,  Inquiry  into  the  Miraculous  Power.s,  &c.,  p.  124. 

VOL.  I,  N 


17H  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

historical  authority  for  it,  hut  each  reader  may  jud<j^e  for 
himself  what  is  likely  to  have  happened,  and  what  not.  We 
give  the  main  points  of  the  narrative,  whicli  have  not  yet 
been  detailed  -. 

The  letter,  after  describing  shortly  the  terrible  tortures  to 
which  some  of  the  Christians  had  to  submit,  details  more 
particularly  the  constancy  and  firmness  of  one  Germanicus. 
The  whole  multitude,  assembled  to  witness  his  fight  with 
the  wild  beasts,  were  astonished  at  his  courage,  and  cried 
out,  "  Away  with  the  atheists.  Let  Polycarp  be  sought.''^ 
Polycarp  on  hearing  of  this  was  inclined  to  remain  in  the 
city,  but  his  friends  urged  him  to  withdraw.  He  then 
withdrew  to  a  small  farm  at  no  great  distance  from  the  city, 
where  he  spent  the  day  and  night  in  praying  for  the 
churches.  "  This,^^  says  the  writer,  "  was  his  habit.  And 
praying,  he  had  a  vision  three  days  before  he  was  captured. 
He  saw  his  pillow  on  fire.  And  turning,  he  said  to  those 
who  were  with  him  prophetically,  '  It  behoves  me  to  be 
Inirnt  alive^^.'' ""^  People  went  immediately  in  search  of  the 
aged  Christian,  and  came  so  near  that  the  martyr  had  to 
retire  to  another  farm.  They  tracked  him  out  there,  but 
could  not  find  his  person.  They  got  hold,  however,  of  two 
boy-servants,  one  of  whom  they  tortured  till  he  told  where 
Polycarp  was  to  be  found.  On  this  troops  were  sent  to  take 
the  Christian.  ''  They  went  out  on  the  preparation-day,  at 
the  hour  of  supper.^'  Arriving  late  in  the  evening,  they  found 
Polycarp  in  an  upper  room  lying.  He  might  indeed  have 
escaped  to  another  farm,  but  he  did  not  wish,  saying,  "  God's 
will  be  done.''  He  therefore  received  his  captors  in  a 
friendly  manner,  asked  that  food  and  drink  should  be  given 
them,  and  requested  permission  from  them  to  spend  an  hour 
in  undisturbed  prayer.  This  being  granted,  "he  stood  and 
prayed,  being  full  of  the  grace  of  God,  so  that  he  could  not 
be  silent  for  two  hours,  and  those  who  heard  were  astonished, 

P  Neander  in  his  Chtirch  History  a<lniirably  narrates  the  most  important 
parts  of  the  narrative. 
*"  c.  5. 


III.]  POLYCARV.  179 

and  many  repeuted  that  they  had  gone  forth  against  such 
an  aged,  God-honoured  old  mau/^     This  prayer  over,  they 
set    him    on   an  ass   and  brought    him  to    tlie    city   on  the 
Saturday  called   the   great   Sabbath.     On   his   way  he   was 
met  by  the  Irenarch  Herod,  who  was  anxious  to  bring  him 
to  the  stadium,  and  Xieetas  the  father  of"  the  Irenarch.     They 
removed  him  from  the  ass  and  took  him  up  into  their  own 
conveyance,  in  the  hope  of  making  him  3'ield  up  his  religion 
to  the  ci\dl  j^ower.     "  What  is  the  harm,"''  said  the\',  "  of 
calling  Caesar  lord,  and  sacrificing  and  doing  suchlike  things, 
and  being  saved?"     Polycarp  at  first  gave  no  reply,  but  at 
last  said,  "  I  am  not  to  do  what  ye  counsel  me."     Then  they 
had   recourse   to   thi-eats,  and  hurled   him    down   from   the 
chariot,  spraining  his  ankle  in  their  violent   efforts.     Poly- 
carp   heeded   not,  but  went  eagerly  onwards    until  he  was 
brought  into  the  stadium,  where  the  confusion  was  so  great 
that  no  one  could  be  heard.     Then  was  heard  the  heavenly 
voice  previously  mentioned.     And  after  that  the  proconsul 
asked   him  if  he   was  Polycarp.     He   replied  that  he   was. 
Then  he  urged  him  to  deny  Christ,   and  to  swear  by  the 
fortune  of  Caesar,  and  to  cry  out,  "  Take  away  the  atheists !" 
and  he  strengthened  his  entreaties  by  begging  him  to  respect 
his  own  age.     Polycarp  then  first  looked  on  the  great  masses 
assembled  \A'ith  a  serious  covmtenance,  shook  his  head,  and 
then  groaning  and  looking  up  to  heaven,  he   said,  "  Take 
away  the  atheists."     The  proconsul  continued  his  entreaties  : 
"  Swear,  and  I  release  thee.     Revile  Christ.""     "  Eighty  and 
six  years,""  said  the  firm  Christian,  "  have  I  served  Him,  and 
He  has  done  me  no  ill,  and  how  can  I  blaspheme  my  King 
who  has  saved  me?""     The  proconsul  still  persevered,  until  at 
last  Polycarp  said  boldly,  "  I  am  a  Christian.     If  you  wish 
to  hear  what  Christianityi  is,  grant  me  a  day.""     The  pro- 
consul replied,  "  Persuade  the  people ;""   but  Polycarp  refused 
to  have  an3thing  to  do  with  the  people.     Then  the  proconsul 
threatened  him  with  wild  beasts — and  the  writer  details  the 

'  That  this  passage  is  an  interpolation  may  be  inferred  from  the  use  of  the 
word  xpn'^T(a>'i(Tfi<iy,  which  occurs  first  in  Clemens  Alcxandrinus. 


no  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

various  answers  and  questions  which  were  bandied  between 
him  and  the  Christian.  The  face  of  Polycarp  all  the  time^ 
so  far  from  falling-,  was  full  of  joy,  and  the  proconsul  in 
astonishment  sent  the  herald  to  proclaim  :  "  Polycarp  has 
confessed  that  he  is  a  Christian."  Then  all  the  multitude  of 
Gentiles  and  Jews  that  dwelt  in  Smyrna  yelled  out  in  un- 
controllable anger,  "  This  is  the  teacher  of  impiety,  the 
father  of  the  Christians,  the  destroyer  of  our  g-ods,  who 
teaches  many  not  to  sacrifice,  nor  worship  the  gods."  On 
this  they  asked  the  Asiarch  Philip  to  set  a  lion  on  Polycarp, 
but  he  informed  them  that  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  do  this, 
since  the  hunt  was  over.  "  Then  it  seemed  g'ood  to  them  to 
cry  out  with  one  accord  so  that  Polycarp  must  be  burnt  ahve. 
For  it  behoved  that  the  vision  about  the  pillow  which  had 
been  made  to  him  should  be  fulfilled,  when  seeing  it  burning- 
in  his  prayer,  he  said,  turning  to  the  faithful  with  him, 
prophetically,  *  I  must  be  burned  alive.^  "  Then  the  Jews 
and  Gentiles  collected  sticks  from  the  prisons  and  baths — 
the  faithful  pressed  on  to  touch  his  skin — the  fire  refused 
to  burn  his  body,  and  he  was  stabbed  by  the  confector,  as 
has  been  more  fully  narrated  already.  Then  are  desci-ibed 
the  dispute  about  his  body,  the  burning  of  it,  the  collecting- 
of  the  bones,  and  finally  we  have  a  chapter  devoted  to  the 
prayer  of  the  martyr.  The  rest  of  the  letter  gives  directions 
to  transmit  the  letter  to  other  brethren'"^ ;  fixes  exactly  the 
day  and  the  year  of  the  martyrdom  •;  and  concludes  with  a 
salutation  and  the  names  of  the  transcribers™. 

We  have  now  examined  the  whole  of  the  information 
which  pretends  to  be  based  on  historical  evidence.  We  have 
not  yet  said  a  word  about  the  precise  date  of  Polycarp.  If 
we  believe  the  ]\Iartyrium,  Polycar})  had  served  Christ  eighty- 
six  years.  Some  take  this  expression  to  mean  that  he  was 
at  that  time  eighty-six  years  of  age.  The  former  is  the  most 
likely  interpi-etation.  Ireniicus  mentions  that  he  was  exceed- 
ingly old.  Now  we  know  that  he  was  at  Rome  in  the  time 
of  Anicetus,  and  Eusebius  expressly  states  that  he  sufiered 


Ill]  rOLYCARP.  181 

martyrdom  in  tlie  reig-n  of  Verus,  that  is,  of  Marcus  Au- 
toiiimis.  ]Marcus  Antoninus  began  to  reign  in  i6i,  and  we 
must  tlierefore  place  the  martyrdom  some  time  after  this. 
But  that  we  must  make  this  time  very  short,  is  evident  from 
tlie  circumstance  that  he  had  had  intercourse  with  some 
of  the  apostles.  Supposing  him  one  hundred  at  his  death, 
he  would  then  have  been  born  between  the  years  60 
and  70,  but  he  could  scarcely  have  been  said  to  have  had 
intercourse  with  the  a])ostles  if  he  was  only  an  infant.  His 
intercour!?e  with  them  must  then  have  taken  place  between 
70  and  80  A.D.  If  oil  the  other  hand  we  suppose  him  eighty- 
six  at  his  death,  he  must  have  been  born  between  70  and  80 
A.D.,  and  had  the  intercourse  between  80  and  90  a.d.  In  any 
way  we  are  startled  either  at  the  great  age  of  the  man,  or 
at  the  possibilit}'  of  his  having*  intercourse  with  the  apostles. 
Hence  writers  have  not  been  satisfied  with  the  date  of 
Euscbius  and  Jerome — and  his  martyrdom  has  been  variously 
placed  at  147,  161,  166,  169,  175,  and  178  a.d.,  all  without 
the  slightest  authority.  The  statement  of  Eusebius  is  in 
harmony  with  the  statements  of  Irenseus;  and,  if  any  reliance 
can  be  placed  on  the  Mai'tyrium,  and  commentators  be  right 
in  their  identification  of  the  proconsul  Statins  Quadratus", 
Polycarp  must  have  perished  about  the  time  of  Marcus 
Antoninus. 

II.    THE   A\T?ITINGS    OF    POLYCAEP. 

Irenseus  mentions  the  writings  of  Polycarp  twice.  The 
letter  to  Florinus,  already  quoted,  concludes  with  this  sen- 
tence: "This  also  can  be  proved  from  his  letters  which  he 
sent  either  to  the  neighbouring  churches  confirming  them, 
or  to  some  of  the  brethren  warning  them  and  urging  them 
on°."  And  in  his  work  against  heretics  he  says,  "  There  is 
also  a  letter  of  Polycarp's  written  to  the  Philippians  of  a 
most  .satisfactory  nature,  from  which  also  those  who  are 
willing  and  have  a  care  about  their  salvation  can  learn  the 

"  See  Usher's  note  ou  c.  Ji.  "  In  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  20. 


182  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

character  of  his  faith,  and  the  proclamation  of  the  trutliP." 
Eusebius  himself  refers  twice  to  the  letter  addressed  to  the 
Philij)pians,  once  in  speaking"  of  Ignatius,  and  on  the  other 
occasion  he  mentions  that  Polycarp  in  the  letter  quotes  from 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter'.  Jerome  farther  mentions  that  this 
letter  was  puhlicly  read  in  his  day  in  Asia.  His  words  are : 
"  Quae  H8(jue  liodio  in  Asia  conventu  legitur."  What  is 
meant  exactly  by  tlie  "conventu  Asiae^^  no  one  knows.  He 
probably  means  simi)ly  that  the  letter  was  read  in  the  public 
assemblies  of  the  Asiatic  churches. 

The  genuineness  of  the  letter  has  been  frequently  attacked, 
mostly,  however,  by  writers  of  the  Tubingen  school.  Scliwe- 
gler  regards  it  as  "  a  shadow  of  the  pastoral  letters  written 
at  the  same  time,  (about  a.d.  i^g,)  under  the  same  relations 
and  doubtless  in  the  same  church  circles."  He  characterises 
the  letter  itself  as  "  an  extraordinarily  poor,  weak,  uncon- 
nected compilation  of  Old  and  New  Testament  passages, 
a  trivial  stringing  together  of  commonplaces,  liturgical 
formulas,  and  moral  admonitions  ;  a  letter  without  occasion 
and  object,  without  individuality  and  prominent  character, 
without  idiosyncrasy  in  language  and  ideas,  entirely  un- 
worthy of  the  great  chief  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor""." 

The  circumstances  which  he  and  Hilgenfeld  have  adduced 
in  favour  of  their  opinion,  besides  the  character  of  the  letter, 
are  the  frequent  mention  of  heretics  in  the  epistle,  the  nature 
of  the  heresies  mentioned,  and  the  number  of  the  heretics* 
Thus  in  chapter  second  Polycarp  mentions  "  the  empty 
vain  talk  and  the  error  of  man}',"  and  in  chapter  seventh 
the  "  vanity  of  many"  is  again  spoken  of.  These  state- 
ments indicate  a  strong  direction  of  the  time,  according  to 
Schwegler  and  Hilgenfeld.  Then  there  are  clear  indications 
that  Polycarp  had  to  deal  vnih  decided  Docetes  and  Mar- 
cionites.  "  Whoever,"  he  says,  "  does  not  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  is  anti -Christ ;  and  whosoever 

f  Iren.  adv.  Hseres.  iii.  3  ;  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  14. 

'I  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  14. 

■■  Nach.apostolisches  Zeitalter,  vol.  ii.  \>.  154. 


III.]  POLTGARP.  183 

does  not  confess  the  testimony  of  the  cross,  is  of  the  Devil ; 
and  whosoever  treats  deceitfully  the  words  of  the  Lord  to 
suit  his  own  desires,  and  says  there  is  no  resurrection  nor 
judg-ment,  he  is  the  firstborn  of  Satan^^^  These  last  words 
are  supposed  to  have  a  personal  reference  to  Marcion,  for 
we  know  from  Irenaeus  that  Polycarp  did  actually  apply  the 
term  "  firstborn  of  Satan"*'  to  Marcion. 

Besides  the  notices  of  heresies,  appeal  is  made  to  the  refer- 
ences to  Ignatius  in  chapter  thirteenth.  There  the  letters  of 
that  martyr  arc  expressly  mentioned,  and  as  a  late  date  is  as- 
signed to  them,  any  notice  of  them  must  be  somewhat  later. 

The  only  passage  which  is  supposed  to  give  something  like 
a  real  clue  to  the  date,  is  one  resembling  a  passage  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  eh.  ii.  2.  It  runs  thus,  '^''Priiy  for  all 
saints ;  pray  also  for  kings  (regibus)  and  powers  and  princes, 
and  for  those  who  persecute  and  hate  you.''  Hilgenfeld  main- 
tains that  the  title  "kings"  could  have  been  used  only  after 
there  were  two  emperors  on  the  throne,  consequently  for  the 
first  time  only  in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Antoninus  ^ 

These  objections  are  of  no  real  force  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  letter.  They  are  of  considerable  force  against  the  date 
generally  assigned  to  its  composition.  Mention  is  made  of 
Ignatius  in  the  thirteenth  chapter,  and  the  mention  is  of 
such  a  nature  that  it  is  plain  the  letter  was  written  shortly 
after  the  martyrdom  of  that  man.  But  the  date  commonly 
assigned  to  that  event  is  based  entirely  on  a  Martyrium  which 
is  full  of  improbabilities;  and  when  we  come  to  examine  it,  we 
shall  see  how  utterly  unworthy  of  credit  it  is  in  this  very  par- 
ticular. There  is  nothing  then  to  prevent  us  suj^posing  that 
the  letter  was  written  after  Polycarp  had  visited  Rome,  and 
had  had  interviews  with  the  Marcionites.  Hilgenfeld's  argu- 
ment, however,  from  the  words  "  Pray  for  kings,"  for  assigning 
this  letter  to  the  time  of  Marcus  Antoninus,  is  entirely  de- 
stroyed by  the  circumstance  that  Justin  Martyr  not  only  uses 
the  words  apx^ovres,  as  he  acknowledges  in  reference  to  Anto- 
ninus Pius  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  but  the  word  /3afn\ets". 

•  c.  7.     '  See  Hilgenfeld's  note  4,  Apost.  A'ater,  p.  273.    "  Aiiol.  Piini.  c.  17. 


184  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

Many,  while  admitting  the  genuineness  of  the  letter,  have 
taken  strong  exception  to  chapter  thirteenth.  The  first  that 
brought  forward  objections  prominently  was  Daille  * ,  in  his 
work  on  tlic  writings  attributed  to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite 
and  Ignatius.  His  objections  are  two  :  first,  that  the  chapter 
is  an  evident  break  in  the  epistle,  that  it  either  ought  to  end 
with  the  twelfth  chapter,  or  that  clia]»ter  thirteenth  should 
be  omitted,  and  chajiter  fourteenth  joined  to  the  twelfth. 
Second,  that  in  chapter  ninth  Ignatius  is  held  forth  as  a 
martyr  in  the  words,  "  I  exhort  you  all  to  oljcy  the  word  of 
righteousness,  and  to  practise  all  patience,  which  also  you  see 
before  your  eyes,  not  only  in  the  blessed  Ignatius,  Zosimus 
and  Rufus,  but  also  in  others  of  your  number,  and  in  Paul 
himself,  aud  the  rest  of  the  apostles;"  while  in  chapter 
thirteenth  he  is  spoken  of  as  alive  :  "With  regard  to  Ignatius 
himself  and  those  who  are  with  him,  give  us  more  certain 
information  if  you  have  got  it." 

We  think  Daille^s  objections  are  irrefragable.  The  first  one 
indeed  is  not  of  much  consequence;  for  though  there  is  no 
connection  between  chapters  twelfth  and  thirteenth,  yet  it  is 
certainly  not  impossible  that  Polycarp  may  not  have  been  able 
to  sti-ike  up  a  connection  between  the  various  things  which 
he  wished  to  say.  But  the  second  is  of  a  totally  different 
nature.  In  the  ninth  chapter  Ignatius  is  spoken  of  as  a 
martyr — an  example  to  the  Phili])pians  of  patience.  Nay 
more,  he  seems  to  be  reckoned  among  those  who  came  out  of 
the  Philippians,  and  therefore  it  is  likely  that  the  Ignatius 
known  to  the  Phili])pians  was  connected  with  the  Philipjiian 
church.  Ill  the  thirteenth  chapter  Polycarp  requests  infor- 
mation with  regard  to  "  Ignatius  and  those  with  him."  These 
words  occur  only  in  the  Latin  translation  of  the  epistle.  To 
get  rid  of  the  difficulty  which  they  present,  it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  the  words  "  de  his  qui  cum  eo  sunt"  are  a  wrong 
rendering  of  the  Greek  -nepl  rdv  jxer  avrov.  Aud  then  the 
words  are  supposed  to  mean  "  concerning  Ignatius  (of  whose 
death  I  heard,  but  of  which  I  wish  particulars)  and  those  who 

^  Daillo.  p.  427. 


in.]  POLYCAUP.  I8:> 

icere  \\\\h.  \\\m."  But  even  the  Greek  could  not  be  forced 
into  such  a  meaning'  as  this ;  and  moreover,  there  is  no  reason 
to  impug-n  the  Latin  translation,  except  the  peeidiar  difficulty 
presented  by  a  comparison  with  the  ninth  chapter  y. 

Ritschl  has  attempted  to  show  that  the  letter  has  been 
lai'g-ely  interpolated,  but  his  reasons  are  purely  subjective. 
He  maintains  that  chapter  third  and  parts  of  chapters 
eleventh  and  twelfth  are  interpolated.  He  rejects  also  the 
passage  in  chapter  ninth,  already  referred  to,  and  the  passage 
in  chapter  thirteenth,  which  we  have  now  discussed.  "The 
interpolations,^''  he  informs  us,  "  proceed  from  the  same  man 
who  partly  interpolated,  partly  composed,  the  Ignatian  letters." 
He  allows  the  references  to  gnosis  to  remain,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  them  makes  the  date  of  the  letter  lie  somewhere 
between  140  and  168  a.u^. 

Of  his  other  letters  no  trace  has  been  left.  Some  indeed 
suppose  that  a  few  extracts  from  them  have  come  down  to  us 
in  the  Catena  of  Victor  of  Capvia.  But  as  he  quotes  them 
from  the  Responsiones  of  Polycarp,  and  as  Irenseus  says 
nothing  of  this  work,  we  may  set  them  down  as  spurious. 
At  the  least  they  are  entirely  unauthenticated,  though  there 
is  nothing  in  them  greatly  opposed  to  their  being*  the  work  of 
Polycai'p.  Later  writers  speak  of  various  other  productions 
of  Polycarp.  Suidas  mentions  a  letter  to  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pag-ite,  jMaximus  a  letter  to  the  church  of  Athens,  and  a 
work  called  AiSax?/.  Pionius,  the  writer  of  a  martyrium  of 
Polycarp,  attributes  other  works '''.  No  one  supposes  any  of 
these  works  to  have  been  genuine. 

The  letter  has  no  express  object.  Polycarp  tells  the 
Philippians  that  he  would  not  have  written  of  his  own 
accord  regarding  righteousness,  but  they  had  requested  him. 
Polycarp  at  the  same  time  however  refers  to  a  circumstance 

>■  See  Bunsen,  Ignatius  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  io8,  who  shows  very  clearly  the 
force  of  Daill^'s  objections. 

'  Die  Entstehung  des  altk.  Kirche,  p.  584.  Ritschl  de%'otes  an  appendix 
to  the  exhibition  of  liis  opinions  on  the  letter  of  Polycarp. 

»  See  Cave's  Historia  Literaria,  vol.  i.  p.  29. 


18G  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

which  had  probably  considerable  influenee  in  leadings  the 
Philippians  to  ask  him  to  write.  AVe  g-ather  from  the  brief 
exhortations  in  the  letter,  that  Valens,  one  of  the  presbyters 
in  the  church  at  Philippi,  had  been  guilty  of  adultery. 
His  wife  had  probably  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  fact, 
had  been  examined  by  the  church,  and  had  told  lies  to 
save  the  character  of  her  husband.  The  knowledge  of  these 
circumstances  is  based  however  on  very  little.  Polycarp,  in 
the  passage  where  he  refers  to  this  ease,  urges  the  Philippians 
to  be  chaste  and  truthful.  "  I  am  very  sorry,''  he  says,  "  for 
Valens,  who  was  made  a  presbyter  among-  you  some  time  ago, 
that  he  is  so  ignorant  of  the  place  which  has  been  given  him. 
I  warn  you  therefore  to  abstain  from  adulter^",  and  that  ye 
be  chaste  and  truthful.  Abstain  from  every  evil.  For  he 
who  cannot  govern  himself  in  these  things,  how  does  he  pro- 
claim the  truth  to  another?  If  any  one  abstain  not  from 
adultery,  he  will  be  polluted  by  idolatry  and  judged  as  among 
Gentiles.'"'  Then  a  little  after  he  says,  "  I  am  very  sorry  for 
him  and  his  wife.  Ma}^  God  give  them  true  repentance." 
The  Latin  text  has  "  avaritia"  for  what  we  have  translated 
"adultery."  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  may  have  been  his 
crime ;  l)ut  the  probability  is,  as  has  been  suggested,  that  the 
Greek  had  TiAeore^ta,  and  that  the  Latin  translator  took  this 
word  in  its  usual  sense,  forgetting  that  it  could  mean  what 
we  have  taken  it  to  mean,  and  how  appropriate  the  word 
would  be  in  circumstances  where  the  utmost  delicacy  was 
necessary,  and  where  Polycarp  would  feel  an  anxiety  not  to 
be  a  stumbling-block  to  a  brother  who  might  yet  return 
to  the  paths  of  righteousness. 

There  is  no  trace  of  a  date  in  the  letter,  except  in  the 
chapter  which  we  have  rejected  as  an  interpolation.  How 
far  the  mention  of  the  heresies  to  which  we  have  alluded 
determines  its  date,  may  be  questioned;  but  the  great  pro- 
bability is,  that  it  was  written  after  Polycarp  had  engaged 
in  the  work  of  converting  the  Marcionites,  as  we  have 
noticed  alread}-.  He  speaks  of  the  church  in  Philippi  as 
having  existed  in  early  times,  as  having  known  God  before 


111.]  POLTCAEP.  187 

the  Smyrneans  knew  Him'»,  and  as  havin*;^  had  Paul  for 
their  teacher.  We  gatlier^  however,  that  the  generation 
whom  Paul  had  taught  had  passed  away.  He  preached 
"  to  the  men  who  then  were.^' 

The  letter  is  of  great  importance  in  regard  to  the  history 
of  the  New  Testament.  Polycarp  has  made  several  most 
distinct  quotations  from  Peter  and  Paul.  The  subject  is 
discussed  hereafter.  There  is  also  a  most  striking  resem- 
blance between  some  parts  of  the  letter  of  Polycarp  and  that 
of  Clemens  to  the  Corinthians.  The  resemblance  however 
does  not  warrant  us  in  supposing  either  that  Polycarp  knew 
Clemens's  letter,  or  the  converse.  This  resemblance  occurs 
in  passages  which  relate  to  the  common  thoughts  and  pre- 
cepts of  the  early  Christians. 

The  letter  has  not  much  literary  merit,  l)ut  it  has  much 
that  is  really  noble,  and  it  is  pervaded  by  a  true  Christian 
spirit.  It  is  remarkably  simple  and  earnest.  We  have 
already  quoted  the  criticism  of  Schw^egler,  and  we  only 
remark  now  in  regard  to  it,  that  it  is  akin  to  that  of  his  master 
Baur,  who  speaks  in  the  most  depreciating  terms  of  one  of 
the  noblest  of  PauFs  letters,  the  letter  to  the  Philippians, 
so  full  of  deep  love  and  glowing  devotion  to  Christ  and  his 
Church,  and  so  touching  in  the  kind  words  which  flow 
from  the  bold,  determined,  unflinching  preacher  of  righteous- 
ness and  lil:)erty. 

There  is  not  much  to  be  said  of  the  theology  of  Polycarp. 
Those  who  suppose  different  schools  of  early  Christianity  are 
as  usual  divided  in  their  opinions  as  to  which  Polycarp  should 
belong.  Some  compare  his  epistle  with  that  of  Clemens, 
and  set  him  down  in  the  same  school.  Others  attempt,  with 
entire  want  of  success,  to  show  that  its  theology  is  akin  to 
that  of  the  Ignatian  letters,  for  they  are  forced  to  confess 
there  are  great  and  striking  differences'^. 

•^  c.  I  (.  <•  See  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vater,  p.  373. 


188  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  [Chap. 


III.    ABSTRACT   OF    THE    LETTER. 

The  letter  opens  thus  :  "  Polyearp  and  the  elders  with  him 
to  the  church  of  God  which  sojourns  in  Philippi,  mercy  to  you 
and  peace  from  Almig-hty  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour  be  multiplied.''  Polyearp  expresses  his  joy  in  them 
because  they  had  received  those  who  were  in  bonds  for  Christ, 
and  because  the  firm  root  of  their  faith  bore  fruit  for  Jesus 
Christ^'.  He  therefore  urg-es  them  to  serve  God  with  fear, 
believing"  on  Him  who  raised  Christ  Irom  the  dead,  and  who 
will  raise  them  also  if  they  walk  in  his  commandments.  He 
at  the  same  time  describes  to  them  the  course  of  conduct 
acceptable  to  God"?.  He  does  not  take  it  upon  him  to  write 
these  exhortations  of  his  own  accord ;  they  had  urg-ed  him. 
He  could  not  attain  to  the  wisdom  of  the  blessed  and 
g-lorious  Paul,  who  taug-ht  them  personally  the  word  of  truth, 
and  in  his  absence  from  them  wrote  to  them  letters,  in  which 
if  they  were  to  look  eagerly,  they  might  be  built  up  in  faith, 
hope,  and  love  f.  The  love  of  money  is  the  beginning  of 
evils.  We  must  therefore  arm  ourselves  with  the  weapons 
of  righteousness,  teaching  ourselves  first  to  walk  in  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  om*  wives  to  be  content  with 
their  husbands  and  to  train  their  children  in  the  fear  of  the 
Lord,  and  widows  to  be  free  from  evil-speaking  and  other 
vices  g.  He  then  describes  what  ought  to  be  the  character  of 
deacons  and  of  the  younger  men^,  and  of  presbyters.  Then 
he  urges  the  duty  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  cautions  them 
against  false  brethren,  who  lead  astray  vain  men' ;  "for  every 
one  that  does  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the 
flesh  is  anti-Christ."  He  mentions  other  forms  of  false 
teaching  which  they  were  to  avoid,  and  he  exhorts  them  to 
fast  and  to  pray  to  God  not  to  lead  them  into  temptation''. 
Then  he  advises  them  to  cling  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  endured 
all   things  that  we  might  live   in   Him  ;    He  is  to   be  our 

''    C.    1.  '    C.  2.  '   C.   T,.  f    C.   4. 

>■  c.  5.  '  c.  6.  *  c.  7. 


III.]  POLYCAUr.  189 

pattern'.  They  were  therefore  to  be  patient,  according-  to 
the  example  which  they  had  received,  not  only  from  Ignatius 
and  Zosimus  and  Rufus,  but  also  from  Paiil  and  the  rest  of 
the  apostles.  They  did  not  love  the  present  age,  but  Him 
who  died  for  them™.  They  were  then  to  follow  the  cxam])le 
of  the  Lord,  to  love  one  another  and  do  good,  so  that  the 
Lord  might  not  be  evil  spoken  of  among  them  ".  Polycarp 
expresses  his  great  sorrow  for  Valens,  that  had  been  m;ide 
a  presb3-ter  among"  the  Philijipians.  He  warns  them  all  to 
be  on  their  gniard  ag'ainst  adultery,  and  to  be  chaste  and 
truthful ;  he  hod  found  no  such,  vice  among  the  Philippians. 
He  hopes  God  will  give  Yalens  and  his  wife  true  repentance, 
and  that  they  will  look  on  them  as  erring  members,  not 
as  enemies".  He  hopes  that  they  are  well  exercised  in  the 
sacred  writings,  and  he  prays  that  God  may  build  them  up 
in  faith  and  truth.  Then  he  mentions  for  whom  they  ought 
to  pray  p  ;  then  he  mentions  more  particularly  their  letter^ 
and  that  of  Ignatius  to  him,  promises  to  do  what  they  ask 
him,  and  requests  more  particular  information  regarding 
Ignatius*!.  JJe  mentions  that  he  writes  the  letter  through 
Crescens,  and  recommends  him  and  his  sister  to  the  Philip- 
pians.    The  letter  concludes  :  "  Grace  be  with  you  all.  Amen/^ 

IV.  THE  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  LETTER. 

God. — The  teaching  of  Polycarp  with  regard  to  God  is 
entirel}'  of  a  practical  nature,  and  occurs  only  in  a  practical 
connection.  He  calls  God  almighty  when  wishing  that  the 
church  in  Philippi  might  have  mercy  and  peace  multiplied 
to  them  from  Him  ^.  He  states  that  nothing  escapes  the 
notice  of  God — neither  reasonings,  nor  thoughts,  nor  any  of 
the  concealed  things  of  the  heart — in  order  to  urge  the 
widows  to  be  free  from  every  evil  ^.  God  also  is  not  mocked, 
and  therefore  men  ought  to  walk  worthily  of  God's  com- 
mandment  and  glory '.     "  We  are  before  the  eyes  of  God'' 

'   C.  8.  ">    C.   9.  "    C.    10.  "    C.    II.  9    c.    12. 

I  c.  13.  '  c.  I.  •  c.  4.  '  c.  5. 


190  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

is  also  given  as  a  reason  for  tlie  performance  of  duty" ;  and 
he  urges  them  to  pray  to  the  all-seeing  God  not  to  lead 
them  into  temptation '■';  his  omniscience  thus  being  a  security 
for  their  spiritual  safety.  God's  will  also  is  spoken  of  as 
the  cause  of  salvation  to  men,  and  men  are  to  put  their 
trust  in  Him  ^.  It  was  He  who  raised  Christ,  and  will  raise 
those  who  walk  in  his  commandments  ^  ;  He  will  also  })unish 
the  disobedient  ^. 

Christ. — There  is  no  direct  statement  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  Routh  has  fancied  that  in  one  passage  there  is  an 
express  declaration,  but  he  does  not  attribute  certainty  to  his 
rendering  a,  'X'lie  passage  is,  "  For  we  are  before  the  eyes  of 
the  Lord  and  God^;"  he  evidently  translates  it,  "  For  we  are 
before  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  even  God".'-'  If  this  were  the 
correct  translation,  then  the  word  'Lord'  would  unquestionably 
refer  only  to  God,  as  in  the  usual  phrase  '  the  Lord  God,^ 
and  we  should  have  no  reference  at  all  to  Christ.  The 
probability  is,  however,  that  the  word  '  Lord'  indicates  Christ, 
and  'God'  God  the  Father.  This  coupling  of  God  and  Christ 
together  is  frequent  in  this  epistle  :  "  ]Mercy  from  God  and 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ^ ;"  Christians  are  "  chosen  by  God 
and  our  Lord « ;"  "  Men  are  to  put  their  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  Father  f ;"  "  Deacons  of  God  and 
Christ  o ;"  "  Obedient  to  presbyters  and  deacons  as  to  God 
and  Christ  ^."  It  will  be  noticed  too  that  in  this  coupling 
Christ  is  sometimes  indicated  by  the  word  '  Lord.'  This 
word  occurs  several  times,  but  on  every  occasion  we  may 
apply  it  to  Christ,  and  on  most  we  must  so  apply  it.  The 
ambiguous  cases  are  two — where  mention  is  made  of  walking 
in  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  and  where  Polycarp  hopes 
the  Lord  may  give  a  change  of  mind  to  the  erring  A'alens 

"  c.  6.  '  c.  7.  "  c.  I.  >'  c.  2.  *  Ibid. 

"  He  says  simply,  "  Christ  alone  seems  to  be  meant  by  these  words." 
Script.  Eccl.  Opusc.  vol.  i.  p.  26. 

^  The  Latin  ti-anslator  omits  '  Dei '  altogether,  and  one  has  '  Dei '  alone. 

«  c.  6.  "1  c   I.  ^  c.  I.  f  c.  12.  8  c.  5. 

•>  C.  5.  This  coupling  occurs  so  frequently,  that  we  doubt  whether  the  hand 
of  an  interpolator  has  not  been  at  work. 


III.]  POLYCAlir.  191 

and  his  wife '.  In  the  first  instance  we  most  naturally  think 
of  God  as  Lord,  in  the  latter  we  think  most  natm-ally  of 
Christ  as  being  Lord  of  the  Church  in  a  peculiar  sense. 

Of  Christ^s  peculiar  relation  to  the  Father  only  one  passage 
speaks.  He  is  called  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God'^ ;  nothing 
is  said  of  his  pre-existence,  but  it  is  asserted  that  the  prophets 
foretold  his  coming,  and  that  the  apostles  preached  it'.  With 
regard  to  the  honour  due  to  Him,  we  shall  speak  in  mentioning 
the  relation  in  which  He  stands  to  Christians. 

His  coming  to  earth  is  maintained  as  real,  and  the  man 
who  denies  his  real  humanity  is  pronounced  anti-Christ  "^ ; 
and  He  is  said  to  have  Ijeeome  the  servant  of  all.  Nothing 
is  said  of  his  life  on  earth,  but  a  quotation  is  made  from 
the  New  Testament  in  which  his  sinlessness  is  asserted  ". 
Frequent  mention  is  made  of  his  death.  It  is  spoken  of 
as  a  wonderful  instance  of  patient  endurance,  and  as  such 
worthy  of  our  imitation  ".  They  are  said  to  glorify  Him  who 
suffer  on  account  of  his  name  P.  The  object  which  He  had  in 
dying  is  expressed  in  various  ways;  it  is  represented  as  the 
taking  away  of  sins  :  "  He  bore  to  go  up  even  to  death,  on 
account  of  our  sins^  ;"  "  He  carried  away  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  up  to  the  tree"".^^  It  is  also  represented  as  the  source  of 
life  :  "  He  endured  all  things  that  we  might  live  through 
Hims.^^  The  same  idea  is  really  implied  in  the  statement  that 
Christ  is  the  earnest  of  our  righteousness '.  There  is  also 
a  more  general  expression  of  the  object  of  his  death,  when  He 
is  described  as  having  died  on  our  behalf  (vvrep  vfJ-Siv),  and 
having  been  raised  on  our  account 'i  (8i'  ijixas) .  The  cross  is 
referred  to  in  the  puzzling  assertion,  that  "  whosoever  shall 
not  confess  the  testimony  of  the  cross  is  from  the  devib.'^ 
The  testimony  of  the  cross  most  probably  means  the  witness 
borne  by  Christ  to  the  utter  vanity  of  this  sinful  age,  and 
the  necessity  of  righteousness  and  obedience  to  God.     It  has 


'    C.  II. 

k    C.   12. 

'  c.  6. 

™  c.  7. 

n    C.  8. 

o  c.  8. 

p  Ibid. 

1    C.  I. 

'  c.  8. 

"  Ibid. 

'  c.  8. 

"  c.  9. 

^  c.  7. 

1  <) 2  THE   APO S  TO  L I CA  L    FA  T II K 1! S.         [Chap. 

been    most  variously  interpreted — the   truth    of  the  cross*, 
Christ^s  suflering-s  on  the  cross,  &c. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  mentioned  several  times,  and  is 
always  attributed  to  God's  ])o\ver:  "Whom  God  raised,  loosing' 
the  pang's  of  death  ^ ;"  '•  He  who  raised  Christ  from  the 
dead  ^."  The  honours  and  universal  sway  awarded  Him  after 
liis  resurrection  are  also  mentioned  :  "  Him  who  raised  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  Him  glory  and  a 
throne  on  his  right  hand,  to  whom  all  heavenly  and  earthly 
thing's  are  subjected,  whom  every  breath  serves  ^."  Of  his 
action  in  heaven,  ai)art  from  his  present  inlluence  on  men, 
nothing  is  said  unless  it  be  implied  in  the  designation 
"eternal  priest ^^/''  These  words  apply  far  more  probably, 
however,  to  the  pin-ifying  influence  which  He  continually 
exercises  on  his  people,  cleansing-  them  from  their  sins,  and 
presenting"  them  pure  to  God. 

With  regard  to  his  action  on  men  now,  it  has  been  already 
noticed  that  mercy  and  peace  and  election  to  salvation  are 
sjioken  of  as  coming  from  God  and  Christ.  A  change  of 
mind  we  also  saw  attributed  to  his  power,  and  He  is  alluded 
to  as  forgiving  sins<^.  His  future  action  is  consonant  with 
these  powers ;  He  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  living  and  dead'i. 
We  must  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ^;  we  are 
therefore  bound  at  present  to  follow  his  example,  to  serve 
Him,  to  put  our  confidence  in  Him  and  God,  and  our  con- 
fidence must  bear  fruit  to  Him^  If  we  thus  obey  Him,  and 
please  Him  in  this  age,  we  shall  receive  the  age  to  come&. 
He  has  promised  to  raise  us  from  the  dead,  and  if  we  live 
in  a  manner  worthily  of  Him,  and  place  our  faith  in  Him, 
we  .shall  yet  reign  with  Him ''. 

Throughout  the  whole  letter  there  is  not  a  single  allusion 
to  Christ's  rescuing  us  from  any  suffering  or  penalty  of  sin. 

"  See  note  on  the  passage  in  Jacobson. 

y    C.    I.  '    CC.  2,    12.  "   C.   2.  •>   C.   12. 

<=  c  6.  The  word  *  Lord '  is  here  used,  so  that  there  may  be  some  uncertainty 
with  regard  to  the  application  of  the  passage  to  Christ,  but  the  context 
is  decidedly  in  favour  of  this  \new. 

•i  c.  2.  «  c.  6.  f  c.  I.  e  c.  s.  ''  Ibid. 


III.]  POLYCARP.  iJKi 

Salvation  of  such  a  nature  may  be  imi)liecl  in  the  statements 
of  Polycarp,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  for  a  moment  ever  thought  of  the  relief  from  pain. 
His  mind  g-lows  with  the  thought  of  being  relieved  from  sin  : 
the  only  occasions  on  which  the  idea  of  suffering  comes  to  the 
mind  of  the  writer,  are  when  he  denounces  those  who  refuse 
to  put  their  faith  in  Christ :  "  God  will  seek  Christ's  blood 
from  those  who  disobey  Him';"  and  a  woe  is  pronounced 
on  those  tiirough  whom  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  evil 
spoken  of''. 

Sjjirit. — Polycarp  does  not  mention  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
quotes  from  Peter's  First  Epistle  the  words  "  Every  lust  wars 
against  the  spirit/'  but  spirit  there  clearly  means  the 
spiritual  nature  of  man,  and  Peter  has  actually  v/^vx'/- 

Angels. — No  mention  is  made  of  angels.  The  devil  is 
mentioned,  as  we  have  seen,  under  the  name  of  devil  and 
Satan,  and  as  having  a  first-born  and  other  children. 

Sin. — No  mention  is  made  of  original  sin,  but  the  universal 
sinfulness  of  man  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  statement,  "  We 
are  all  debtors  of  sin'."  He  of  course  means  the  Smyrnean 
Church  and  the  Philippian  ;  but  the  remark  could  not  have 
been  made,  except  on  the  hypothesis  of  universal  sinfulness. 

Salvation. — Rescue  from  this  state  of  sin  is  the  result  of 
God's  willing  it  through  Jesus  Christ.  "  Knowing  that  ye 
are  saved  by  favour,  not  from  works  but  by  the  will  of  God 
through  Jesus  Christ"^."  The  condition  of  one  who  is  saved  is 
one  of  confidence  in  God  and  Christ.  Those  who  believe  in 
Christ  rejoice  with  joy  inexpressible",  while  he  urges  them  to 
serve  God  with  fear  and  truth,  leaving  their  vain  talk  and 
trusting  in  Him  who  raised  our  Lord  from  the  dead".  We 
have  a  still  more  exact  description  of  faith  and  love.  "Through 
the  letters  of  Paul,"  says  Polycarp,  "you  will  be  able  to  be 
built  up  into  the  faith  given  you,  which  is  the  mother  of  us 
all,  hope  following  and  love  going  before,  love  towards  God 
and  Christ  and  one's  neighbour.     If  any  one  be  within  these, 

'    C.   2.  ''    C.   lO.  '    C.   6.  "1    C.   I. 

"    C.    I.  "   c.   ?. 

VOL.  I.  O 


!94  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATnKRS.         [Chap. 

he  has  fulfilled  the  law  of  rig'hteousness,  for  he  that  has  love 
is  far  from  every  sin  v."  In  various  passages  he  describes 
what  the  Christian  should  avoid,  g-iving-  particular  counsel 
to  jireshyters  and  deacons,  young-  men,  wives,  widows,  and 
virgins — all  presenting  a  noble  picture  of  that  life  which 
had  been  revealed  from  heaven. 

T/ie  Church. — The  overseer  of  a  church  is  not  mentioned  in 
this  letter,  and  as  Polycarp  directs  his  counsels  to  presbyters 
and  deacons  and  almost  every  conceivahle  class  in  the  church, 
the  inference  is  very  probable  that  either  there  was  no  over- 
seer or  that  the  overseers  were  identical  with  one  of  the  classes 
mentioned.  There  is  not  much  to  identify  any  of  the  classes 
mentioned  with  the  overseers,  but  since  we  know  that  the 
overseers  and  the  presbyters  are  the  same  in  Clemens's  letter 
and  the  same  in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  an  extreme  pro- 
bability that  they  are  the  same  here  too.  The  evidence  for 
their  identity  in  this  letter  is  that  the  duties  assigned  to  the 
presbyters  are  exactly  the  duties  assigned  in  other  writings  to 
the  overseers,  and  that  oversight  is  one  of  these.  The  pres- 
byters are  to  be  ^^compassionate,  merciful  to  all,  turning  back 
those  who  have  strayed,  taking  the  oversight  of  all  the  sick, 
not  neglecting  the  widow,  or  the  orphan,  or  the  needy^.'' 

Besides  this,  we  must  regard  Polycarp  himself  as  a  presbyter. 
The  commencement  of  the  letter  leads  us  to  infer  this : 
"Polycarp  and  those  who  with  him  are  elders.''  It  might 
possibly  mean  "Polycarp  and  elders  who  are  with  him,''  but 
this  is  not  a  likely  translation  of  the  words  f,  and  certainly 
disagrees  with  the  Latin  translation.  Then,  in  the  chapter 
quoted,  Polycarp  passes  from  addressing  the  presbyters  in  the 
third  person  to  the  first :  "  Not  stern  in  judgment,  knowing 
that  we  are  all  debtors  of  sin."  Of  course  the  overseers  mitrht 
be  included  among  or  along  with  the  presbyters  and  yet  be  the 
same,  but  when  we  have  no  intimation  of  a  difTerence,  the 
presumption  is  that  there  is  identity.     Nor  is  any  inference 

p  c.  3.  '1  c.  6. 

'  The   Greek    is,    noXtWapiroj    koli    oi    nvv    avrrZ    rpfff^inepot  :      the     Latin, 
"  Polycai-piis  et  qui  cum  eo  sunt  presbyteri." 


Ill]  POLYCARP.  v^:^ 

to  be  drawn  from  the  circumstance  that  Polycarp's  name 
appears  at  the  head  of  the  letter.  Polycarp's  advice  was 
asked,  not  that  of  the  church  s. 

The  reason  urged  for  Polycarp's  not  describing  himself 
as  overseer,  and  not  alluding  to  the  duties  of  the  overseer,  is 
drawn  from  the  modesty  of  the  man*.  He  would  not  presume 
to  give  directions  as  to  what  the  overseer  should  do.  But  this 
reason  surely  will  not  hold  in  that  passage  where  he  urges 
the  young  men  to  refrain  from  all  vices,  and  to  be  "subject 
to  presbyters  and  deacons  as  to  God  and  Christ »i.''  Surely 
the  modesty  of  the  man  would  not  have  prevented  him 
from  asking  the  young  men  to  be  subject  to  the  bishop. 
And  if  it  did,  how  impudent  must  Ignatius  have  been  on 
the  supposition  that  the  longer  or  shorter  Greek  letters 
are  genuine.  In  fact,  if  ever  there  was  opportunity  for 
introducing  with  honour  a  bishop,  this  was  the  occasion. 
Indeed,  the  passage  sounds  like  one  of  those  hierarchical 
revelations  which  we  have  in  Ignatius.  It  merely  sounds  like 
it,  however,  for  the  meaning  of  it  plainly  is  that  the  young 
men  were  to  listen  to  the  counsels  and  advices  of  the  wise  and 
holy  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  being  based  upon  God's  law 
and  being  a  duty  to  God  and  Christ.  There  is  no  more 
attribution  of  dignity  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons  in  this 
passage  than  there  is  to  masters  in  Eph.  vi.  5 :  "  Servants, 
obey  your  masters  in  the  flesh  as  Christ,  with  fear  and  trem- 
bling in  the  simplicity  of  your  heart." 

Presbyters  and  deacons  are  the  only  office-bearers  spoken  of 
in  the  church.  We  do  not  learn  what  were  the  duties  of  the 
deacons,  nor  are  we  at  all  to  regard  the  summary  of  the  duties 
of  the  presbyters  as  exhaustive.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
no  notice  is  taken  of  preaching. 

No  mention  by  name  is  made  of  any  of  the  office-bearers  in 
the  church  of  Philippi,  with  the  exception  of  Valens.  The 
letter  is  written  at  the  request  of  the  church,  and  Polycarp 

s  Doraer'B  opinion  on  this  subject  I  take  to  be  unwarranted.  Die  Lehre 
von  der  Person  Christi,  vol.  i.  p.  173,  note. 

'  Rothe,  Anfange,  p.  410;  Hefele  in  loc.  "  c.  5. 

(-)  2 


I'JG  THE  APOSrOLICAL   FATHERS.  [Chap. 

reconiinends  to  the  brethren  Creseens  throug-h  whom  he  sends 
the  e])istle,  and  his  sister.  In  dealing  also  with  the  case  of 
Valens  he  does  not  address  any  one  in  particular,  but  trusts 
they  will  act  gently  towards  him  in  hopes  of  winning  back 
their  erring  brother. 

No  light  is  thrown  on  any  of  the  customs  of  the  early 
church.  Fasts  are  alluded  to  ",  but  they  are  entirely  private 
and  at  the  mil  of  the  individual.  We  discover  the  existence 
of  false  brethren — men  who  bear  the  name  of  the  Lord  in 
hvpocris}'^  and  mislead  vain  meny. 

Future  Slate. — "VVe  have  already  quoted  a  few  of  the  passages 
that  refer  to  the  future  state,  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ, 
God's  raising  up  of  those  who  obey  Him,  and  his  vengeance  on 
those  who  disobey  Him.  It  is  further  said  that  fornicators 
will  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ^ ;  while  it  is  said  of 
Paul  and  others  "that  they  are  in  the  place  due  to  them,  with 
tbe  Lord,  with  whom  also  they  suffered  ^."  Polycarp  quotes 
PauPs  assertion  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ^\ 

Scriptures. — Polycarp  speaks  of  the  sacred  writings,  but  in 
such  a  way  that  no  information  is  given  unth  regard  to  the 
books  that  were  meant  by  the  term.  "  I  trust,''  he  says,  "  that 
you  are  exercised  in  the  sacred  writings."  He  regards  the 
prophets  as  really  foretelling  future  events  <^.  He  quotes  the 
Psalms  twice,  but  does  not  introdiice  his  extracts  as  quotations. 
Once  indeed  the  words  as  they  stand  now  do  intimate  that  the 
passages  adduced  ai-e  Scriptures.  The  passage  occurs  only  in 
the  Latin  translation,  and  has  been  variously  read  and  va- 
riously construed.  It  is  as  follows:  "Confido  enim  vos  bene 
exercitatos  esse  in  sacris  Uteris,  et  nihil  vos  latet;  mihi  autem 
non  est  concessum.  Modo,  ut  his  scripturis  dictum  est, 
Iraseimini  et  nolite  peccare,  et  sol  non  occidat  super  ira- 
cundiam  vestram :"  "  For  I  trust  that  ye  are  well  exercised 
in  sacred  literature,  and  nothing  escapes  you,  but  to  me  it  has 
not  been  granted.  Only,  as  has  been  said  in  these  writings, 
'Be  angry  and  sin  not/  and  'Let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon 

"  c.  7.  See  Heyiis's  Commentatio,  p.  69.  y  c.  6.  '  c.  5.  *  c.  9. 

■■c.  II.  "=  c.  6. 


I 


TIL]  rOLYCARr.  1D7 

your  \n'atli/"  The  first  quotation  is  from  Ps.  iv.  5,  and  the 
second  from  Eph.  iv.  26.  The  plain  inference  from  this  reading' 
is  that  Eph.  iv.  26  forms  part  of  the  Scriptures;  but  siich  an 
application  of  the  word  Scripture  as  meaning-  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  part  of  the  New  looks  like  a  corruption  or  an  inter- 
polation. One  of  the  MSS.  thus  exhibits  the  words  :  "  Non 
est  concessum  uti  his  Scripturis  dictum  est  enim :"  "  It  is 
not  permitted  to  use  these  Scriptures,  for  it  has  been  said," — 
which  does  not  make  a  whit  better  sense  than  the  others. 
!Many  expedients  have  been  devised  to  throw  light  on  this 
passage,  all  of  them  unsatisfactory,  and  perhaps  the  same 
may  justly  be  said  of  the  follo^ang  method.  I  sliould  be 
inclined  to  suppose  "  \\t  dictum  est  his  Scripturis  "  an  addition 
of  the  Latin  translator,  and  I  should  read  "  Confulo  autem — 
nihil  enim  non  concessum  est; — modo  irascimini:"  "1  trust 
you  know  the  Scriptures  and  nothing  escapes  you — for  there 
is  nothing  which  God  has  not  granted.  (Comp.  i  John  ii.  20, 
'  Ye  know  all  things.^)  Only  take  care  of  your  frame  of 
mind — Be  angry  and  sin  not." 

These  are  all  the  allusions  to  the  Old  Testament.  He 
quotes  also  from  an  apocryphal  book,  Tobit,  as  usual  without 
mentioning  that  it  is  a  quotation''. 

Pertaining  to  the  New  we  have  the  following  circum- 
stances. Polycarp  quotes  the  words  of  the  Lord,  twice  in 
close  agreement  with  Matthew,  and  once  in  exact  agreement 
with  Matthew  and  Mark. 

Acts. — There  is  an  exact  quotation  from  the  speech  of  Peter 
as  given  in  Acts  ii.  24. 

Peter's  Letters. — There  is  a  nearly  exact  quotation  from 
I  Pet.  i.  8,  and  exact  quotations  from  i  Pet.  i.  21,  I  Pet.  ii.  1 2, 
22,  24,  I  Pet.  iii.  9;  and  i  Pet.  i.  13  and  1  Pet.  ii.  11  are  also 
most  probably  quoted. 

Some  have  supposed  an  allusion  in  ch.  iii.  to  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  but  the  points  of  resemblance  are  too  distant 
and  common-place. 

Letters  of  Pan f. — "We  have  alread}-  found  an  exact  quotation 


198  THE   APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.         [Chap. 

from  Eph.  iv.  26,  and  we  have  a  nearly  exact  quotation  from 
Eph.  ii.  8,  9.  Polycarp  quotes  i  Cor.  vi.  2  exactly,  and  we  have 
a  maimed  quotation  from  the  same  Epistle,  i  Cor.  vi.  9, 10. 
There  is  a  probable  reference  to  Gal.  i.  i,  and  Gal.  iv.  26  is 
quoted  but  apjdied  to  faith.    Gal.  vi.  7  is  also  exactly  quoted. 

A  resemblance  to  i  Tim.  vi.  10  occurs, and  ue  have  an  exact 
quotation  from  i  Tim.  vi.  7.  There  is  a  probable  allusion  to 
2  Tim.  ii.  12. 

We  have  probable  references  to  Rom.  xii.  1 7  or  2  Cor.  viii.  21, 
and  to  Rom  xiv.  10,  12. 

An  almost  exact  quotation  is  made  from  2  Thess.  iii.  15. 

Most  probably  i  John  iv.  3  is  quoted.  None  of  these  quota- 
tions are  proof  of  any  authority  being-  ascribed  to  the  New 
Testament  books.  Indeed,  as  Polycarp  does  not  mention  the 
sources  from  which  he  derives  his  information,  and  as  he  had 
access  to  apostles  and  men  who  had  heard  and  seen  Christ,  we 
are  not  warranted  in  supposing'  that  he  derived  his  knowledge 
from  our  Gospels  or  that  he  knew  the  words  of  Peter's  speech 
from  the  Acts.  But  these  quotations  prove  conclusively  that 
he  was  well  acquainted  vaXh  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  we 
have  strong  ])robability  that  he  knew  the  second  letter  of 
Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Romans, 
and  the  first  letter  to  Timothy.  There  is  also  probability, 
though  not  nearly  so  great,  that  he  knew  the  second  letter  to 
Timothy  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John. 

In  making  a  quotation  from  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  Polycarp 
introduces  it  with  the  words,  ''As  the  Lord  said,^'  or  "As  the 
Lord  said  teaching'.'^  The  only  exception  to  this  is  where  he 
welds  a  part  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  into  one  of  his  sentences.  In 
the  case  of  all  other  quotations  he  goes  on  as  if  they  were  not 
quotations.  They  seem  to  come  spontaneously  and  suitably, 
and  he  adds  no  authority  to  their  truth.  There  is  one  apparent 
exception.  In  quoting  1  Cor.  vi.  2  the  writer  adds,  "  as  Paul 
teaches."  But  as  this  occurs  in  the  Latin  translation^,  and  as 
it  is  the  onlv  instance  of  an  author's  name  being  mentioned, 


III.]  rOLYCAKP.  199 

Credner  has  justly  suspected  it  to  be  the  addition  of  the 
translator. 

Polycarp,  however,  makes  an  express  reference  to  the  letters 
of  Paul.  He  declares  that  he  is  not  able  *^to  follow  the  wisdom 
of  the  blessed  and  glorious  Paul,  who  when  among-  you  taught 
accurately  and  securely  the  reason  with  regard  to  the  truth 
face  to  face  with  the  men  then  living;  who  also  when  absent 
wrote  letters  to  you,  which  if  you  study  ye  will  be  able  to  be 
built  up  into  the  faith  given  to  you,  which  is  the  mother  of 
us  all  ^." 

This  expression  'letters'  has  caused  a  good  deal  of  discus- 
sion. The  most  natural  intrepretation  is  that  Paul  wrote 
several  letters,  and  the  immense  probability  is  that  he  did 
write  oftener  than  once  to  a  church  so  much  beloved.  At  the 
same  time  clear  proof  has  been  adduced  that  kmaTokai  has 
been  used  even  by  the  best  Greek  writers  when  speaking  only 
of  one  letters. 

MoraUti/. — We  have  already  spoken  of  the  morality  con- 
tained in  these  letters.  We  remark  one  thing  only,  the 
exhortation  similar  to  one  already  noticed  in  Clemens,  to 
waves  to  be  content  with  their  own  husbands,  and  to  love 
all  others  equally  in  continence  (dyoTrwcras  navTa^  i^  trrov  kv 
■naarj  fyKpareiq ' ) .  The  letter  is  from  beginning  to  end 
moral;  and  if  we  were  to  exhibit  its  morality  fully,  we 
should  have  to  translate  the  whole  of  it.  It  is  far  too  much 
to  say,  however,  as  Rossler  and  Balthasar,  that  Polycarp  has 
given  an  exposition  of  the  whole  of  Christian  doctrine,  theo- 
retical and  practical'. 

V.  LITERATURE. 

Most  of  the  codices  in  which  the  epistle  of  Polycarp  occurs 
will  be  noticed  in  the  references  to  the  epistle  of  Barnabas. 
They  are  Cod.  Vat.  859,  Ottobonianus  348,  Codex  Casana- 
tensis,  G.  v.  14,  Codex  Mediceus,  Plut.  vii.  num.  21,  and  MS. 

f  c.  3.  ^  ^ee  Jacobson's  note  on  the  pas.-age.  ''  c.  4. 

'Junius,  Coniment.  p.  82. 


200  THE  APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.     [Chap.  III. 

Barberinum''.  There  are  also  two  manuscripts  of  the  Latin 
translation  in  the  Vatiean  :  one  Cod.  Reg.  8i,  reekoned  to 
belong  to  the  ninth  century ;  the  other  is  the  Codex 
Palatinus  150,  from  which  Dressel  obtained  a  new  translation 
of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas.  It  belongs  to  the  fourteenth  centurj'. 
There  is  also  a  Latin  translation  in  the  Medicean  Library, 
called  by  Jaco])son,  who  collated  it,  Cod.  20.  Plut.  xxiii.  Bibl. 
Mediceo-Laurentiana;.  It  is  attributed  by  Bandinius  to  the 
fifteenth  century. 

EDITIONS. 

The  epistle  of  Polycarp  was  first  printed  in  the  Latin 
translation  only  by  Jacobus  Faber  (Stapulensis),  Paris  1498, 
fol.  The  Latin  translation  was  after  that  frequently  reprinted. 
The  first  Greek  copy  did  not  appear  till  1633,  when  it  was 
edited  by  Halloix  from  the  copy  of  Sirmond  in  his  Illustrium 
Orientalis  Ecclesise  Scriptorum  Vitae  et  Documenta.  Usher 
published  a  new  edition  (London  1647)  from  the  copy  of 
Andi-eas  Schottus,  which  Vossius  had  compared  with  the 
edition  of  Halloix.  It  appeared  after  that  in  the  collections 
of  Coteleriusj  Le  Moyne,  Ittigius,  Frey,  Russel,  and  Gallaudi. 
Both  the  letter  and  the  Martyrium  appeared  in  the  editions 
of  the  Ignatian  letters  published  by  Aldrich,  Oxford  1708, 
and  Thomas  Smith  (1709). 

It  has  appeared  in  more  modern  times  in  the  collections  of 
Hefele,  Reithmayr,  Jacobson,  and  Dressel.  And  Routh  has 
edited  it  with  notes  in  his  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum 
Opuscula.  The  best  edition  is  that  of  Jacobson.  Dressel^s  text 
is  furnished  with  the  most  careful  critical  apparatus,  and  a 
good  recension  of  the  ancient  Latin  version  from  the  two 
A^atican  codices. 

^  Besides  these,  Jacobson  has  collated  Cod.  Bibl.  Eeg.  Paris  (formerly 
Colbertinus),  which  is  said  to  be  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Dressel  marks 
it  Codex  Parisinus  937.  and  ns  of  the  sixteenth  century.  (Prolegg.  xxxvii.) 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE   EPISTLE   OF   BARNABAS. 
I.   THE  AUTHORSHIP. 

1  HE  Epistle  of  Barnabas  has  always  been  reckoned  among 
the  writings  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers :  but  how  far  it 
deserves  to  be  placed  among  the  earliest  writings  of  the 
Christian  Church,  has  been  and  still  is  subject  of  much 
discussion.  The  most  important  point  to  be  determined  is  its 
authorship.  The  production  itself  bears  no  name  and  gives 
no  clue  to  its  writer.  The  Latin  translation  of  it  contains 
no  inscription.  A  few  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  have  either 
in  their  inscription  or  subscription,  "  The  Letter  of  the 
Apostle  Barnabas  •"  the  Greek  of  Tischendorf  has  simply, 
"The  Epistle  of  Barnabas.'' 

The  external  evidence  is  unanimous  in  ascribing  it  to  Bar- 
nabas, the  companion  of  Paul.  The  letter  is  first  mentioned 
by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  expressly  refers  to  it  seven 
times  ^,  and  quotes  largely  from  it.  The  writer  is  called  the 
Apostle  Barnabas,  and  he  is  described  as  the  person  "who 
preached  along  with  Paul  the  gospel  in  the  service  of  the 
Gentiles,-"  {Kara  rrjy  hiaMvlav  t5>v  eOvuiv) .  The  next  writer  who 
quotes  the  letter  is  Origen,  who  calls  it  "  a  catholic  epistle  ^." 
He  says  nothing  about  Barnabas  himself.  These  two  are  the 
principal  witnesses.  But  in  noticing  the  early  testimonies  we 
have  to   consider  statements  of  Eusebius  and   Jerome.    The 

»  Strom,  ii.  6.  p.  441  ;  7.  p.  447  ;    i  j.  p.  464  :    18.  p.  472  ;  20.  p.  489  ;  v,  8. 
p.  677  :    10.  p.  ''18.V    The  passages  are  quotffl  in  Hefele,  Prolc^gninena. 
*>  Cmitr.  CpIs.  i.  63  ;  De  Princip.  iii.  c.  2. 


'202  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

words  of  Eusebius  are^  "  Among-  the  spurious  {voOoi'i)  let  there 
be  set  down  the  writing-  of  the  Acts  of  Paul,  and  the  so- 
called  Shepherd,  and  the  revelation  of  Peter,  and  in  addition 
to  these  the  well-known  letter  of  Barnabas,  and  the  so-called 
teachings  of  the  apostles  c."  The  word  v66os  '^  sug-g-ests  the  idea 
that  Eusebius  held  the  production  not  to  be  the  g-enuine  work 
of  Barnabas  :  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Eusebius  never 
meant  any  such  thing.  In  the  next  sentence  but  one  he  ex- 
pressly declares  these  writings  to  belong  to  the  avTikiyoix^va, 
works  for  which  some  claimed  inspiration,  but  which  were 
generally  regarded  as  not  inspired.  Jerome  says  the  same 
thing :  "  Barnabas  the  Cyprian,  the  same  as  Joseph  the  Levite, 
ordained  an  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  along  with  Paul,  com- 
posed one  letter  tending  to  the  edification  of  the  Church, 
which  is  read  among-  apocryphal  writings  e."  "Whether  Euse- 
bius and  Jerome  regarded  the  letter  of  Barnabas  as  genuine  is 
not  expressly  stated.  From  the  decided  way  in  which  Jerome 
speaks,  "  Barnabas  composed  a  letter,^'  it  is  most  probable  that 
he  regarded  that  person  as  its  real  author.  There  is  no 
obstacle  to  this  opinion  in  an  accidental  mistake  which  Jerome 
has  made  in  attributing  a  passage  from  the  letters  of  Barnabas 
to  Ignatius :  Hieron.  adv.  Pelag.  iii.  2.  p.  783.  The  name 
Ignatius  is  blank  in  the  Vatican  MS. 

This  is  the  external  evidence.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  the 
only  waiter  that  expressly  identifies  the  author  of  the  epistle 
with  Barnabas  the  companion  of  Paul.  Origen  and  Jerome 
were  most  probably  of  the  same  opinion.  And  nowhere  is  a 
contrary  opinion  expressed.  But  that  there  were  doubts  with 
regard  to  its  genuineness,  or  at  least  that  the  early  Christians 
felt  that  the  genuineness  was  not  established  by  good  evidence, 
we  may  justly  infer  from  its  position  among  apocrjT)hal  writ- 
ings. It  is  dillicult  to  believe  that  the  early  Christians  would 
have  rejected  as  uninspired  the  production  of  a  man  who  was 

e  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25.  ^  Henke,  p.  19  ff. 

e  De  Viris  Illustr.  ch.  6.  On  the  use  of  the  term  apocryphus  here  see 
Ernestus  Henke,  De  Epistolie  qu;e  Barnabae  tribuitur  authentia  commen- 
tatio  (Jen.'P  18:7),  p.  12  ff.,  and  the  authorities  quoted  there,  especially 
Pearson. 


IV.]  BAHXABAS.  203 

recog-nised  by  the  Apostles  as  a  God-inspired  man,  who  had 
received  a  special  mission  along  wnth  Paul  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  who  stood  forward  so  prominently  among"  the  apostles  of 
the  Lord.  There  must  have  been  some  strong  reasons  for 
doubting  the  genuineness  of  the  work,  though  these  reasons 
have  not  been  recorded. 

Another  circumstance  must  be  noted  in  weighing  the  ex- 
ternal evidence.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  quotes  several  works 
as  if  they  were  genuine,  though  when  discussing  them  he 
allows  they  were  spurious.  Thus  he  speaks  of  Peter  in  his 
revelation  saying  such  and  such  a  thing,  though  he  must 
have  believed  that  the  Apostle  Peter  was  not  the  author  ^ . 
This  circumstance  permits  us  to  suppose  that  Clemens  may 
have  used  the  name  Barnabas  merely  as  a  convenience  for 
quotation  ;  but  when  we  consider  that  he  not  merely  uses  the 
name  Barnabas,  but  describes  him  as  the  companion  of  Paul, 
and  seems  to  attach  weight  to  the  statement,  we  are  forced 
to  the  conviction  that  Clemens  unquestionably  believed  the 
apostolical  Barnabas  to  be  the  real  author. 

Some  indeed  have  supposed  that  Clemens  varied  in  his 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  w^ork.  They 
ground  this  idea  on  the  supposition  that  they  find  in  the  works 
of  Clemens  a  want  of  that  respect  for  the  opinion  of  Barnabas 
which  w^e  should  expect  he  would  pay  to  the  work  of  an  apo- 
stle g.  The  two  passages  which  are  adduced  in  proof  of  this 
want  of  respect  are  Paedag.  ii.  x.  84.  p.  221.  Pott.,  and  Strom. 
II.  XV.  67.  p.  464.  Pott.  In  the  first,  Clemens  censures  some 
inaccuracies  in  natural  history  which  occur  in  the  epistle  of 
Barnabas.  But  as  he  does  not  mention  Barnabas  by  name, 
we  cannot  say  expressly  that  he  intentionally  accuses  Barna- 
bas of  error.  And  besides  this,  Clemens  held  that  an  apostle 
might  go    wrong  in   mere  outward   things,  such  as   natural 

f  Eclogae  Proph.  41,  48.  49. 

«  Cotelerius,  Patres  Apost.  i.  p.  6  ;  Hug  as  referred  to  by  Hefele  in  his 
Das  Sendsclireiben  des  Apostels  Barnabas  aufs  neue  untersuclit,  iibersetzt  und 
erklart,  Tiibingtii  184.0,  p.  151.  This  work  contains  an  admirable  exposition 
and  examination  of  all  the  interesting  points  with  regard  to  Barnabas,  his  life, 
and  his  letter. 


•204  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

history  facts,  without  his  authority  as  a  spiritual  guide  being 
in  the  slightest  deg-ree  impaii'ed.  Clemens  iu  this  very  in- 
stance agrees  with  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  Barnabas 
while  rejecting  his  facts.  In  the  second  passage  Clemens 
gives  three  allegorical  interpretations  of  the  first  psalm,  one 
of  them  being  found  in  Barnabas.  Some  have  supposed 
Clemens  to  show  a  want  of  respect  for  Barnabas  in  preferring 
another  intei*pretation  to  his.  But  the  inference  is  groundless. 
Clemens  would  allow  the  possibility  of  the  three  interpretations 
being  correct,  and  he  therefore  is  very  far  from  impugning 
the  authority  of  Barnabas  in  mentioning  another  interpreta- 
tion which  seemed  to  penetrate  more  completely  into  the 
spiritual  idea  of  the  psalm  h. 

The  external  evidence  is  then  decidedly  in  favour  of  the 
authorship  by  the  Apostle  Barnabas,  yet  it  is  scanty  and 
not  that  of  contemporaries. 

The  internal  evidence  is  conclusive  against  the  authorship 
of  Barnabas.  The  few  facts  which  are  related  of  Barnabas 
are  just  such  as  make  it  next  to  impossible  that  Barnabas 
could  have  written  this  letter.  Barnabas,  we  are  told  in  the 
Acts,  was  a  Levite ;  we  are  told  also  that  he  was  sent  to 
reconcile  the  Jewish  Christians  and  the  heathen  Christians ; 
we  know  also  that  he  was  an  intimate  friend  and  companion 
of  Paul,  and  must  have  known  and  agreed  with  PauFs 
opinions  regarding  Judaism.  And  we  know  also  that  in 
the  only  difference  he  had  with  Paul  on  the  subject  of 
Judaism,  he  erred  in  too  great  attachment  to  the  Jewish 
party'.  We  thus  ascertain  prett}^  clearly  that  Barnabas  as  a 
Levite  must  have  been  intimately  acquainted  with  the  rites 
of  Judaism ;  we  know  also  that  he  did  not  despise  these  rites, 
l>ut  looked  upon  them  as  preliminary  to  the  freer  dispensation 
of  Christ;  that  he  sympathized  alike  with  the  adherence  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  to  the  Jewish  rites,  and  with  the  desire 
of  the  Gentiles  to  be  free  from  the-burden  of  the  law;  and  we 
cannot  Init  deem  it  as  certain,  even  should  it  not  be  true 
that  he  was  one  of  the  Seventy,  that  ho  knew  well  that  Christ 

''  Hilgcnfeld,  Apost.  Yater,  p.  44.  ■  Gal.  ii.  13. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  l^O') 

had  submitted  to  the  performance  of  Jewish  rites,  that  some 
of  the  best  apostles  had  done  the  same,  and  we  also  may  rest 
assured  that  he  had  himself  as  a  Jewish  Christian  still  kept 
up  his  attendance  at  the  temple  when  in  Jerusalem.  Now 
the  writer  of  the  epistle  before  us  snaps  all  historical  con- 
nexion between  Judaism  and  Christianity.  The  performance 
of  the  Je^vish  rites,  according  to  him,  was  not  introductory 
and  educatory,  but  a  gross  sin,  a  misconception  of  the  true 
meaning-  of  the  law,  a  carnal  instead  of  a  spiritual  inter- 
pretation of  the  Divine  will.  The  Jews  might  have  been 
l)artakers  of  God^s  covenant,  but  even  at  the  law-giving  they 
showed  themselves  unworthy,  and  ever  after  that  the  covenant 
belonged  not  to  them,  but  was  resei-ved  for  Christians.  There 
were  a  few  brilliant  exceptions  to  the  general  mass  of  the 
Jews — Moses,  and  David,  and  the  prophets,  who  saw  into  the 
Divine  meaning  and  spiritual  force  of  the  law ;  but  the  Jews 
never  understood  the  law  aright.  Therefore  Christ  came  to 
consummate  their  sins,  and  to  give  the  covenant  to  others. 
Here  is  a  fundamental  difference  between  Barnabas  and  the 
writer  of  this  e])istle — a  difference  which  pervades  the  whole 
of  the  epistle,  and  which  shows  itself  in  every  chapter  and 
particular  head  of  the  subject,  in  the  writer's  views  of  the  of- 
ferings of  the  temple,  of  the  sabbath,  and  of  the  temple  itself. 
This  difference  seems  to  me  quite  sufficient  to  settle  the  whole 
matter.  It  is  just  possible  that  Barnabas  may  have  changed 
his  opinions,  and  lost  all  his  knowledge  of  Judaism,  and 
sympathy  with  its  better  side  ;  and  it  is  just  possible 
that  he  may  have  written  this  letter  in  his  dotage  ;  but 
the  possibility  is  one  of  which  the  highest  degi-ee  of  im- 
probability may  be  safely  predicated.  Here  then  the  ex- 
ternal and  internal  evidence  are  at  variance,  but  the  ex- 
ternal is  so  worthless  that  we  cannot  for  a  moment  hesitate 
to  follow  the  internal. 

We  have  now  set  forth  the  main  point.  But  the  evidence 
against  the  authorship  of  Barnabas,  as  might  be  expected, 
lies  thick  in  every  page.  We  shall  set  down  the  principal 
of  the  objections  which  have  been  urged. 


20i>  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

First  and  most  remarkable  are  the  numerous  mistakes  and 
inaccuracies  that  cliaracterize  the  writer's  statements  with  re- 
gard to  the  facts  of  Judaism.  I.  He  thus  describes  the  ceremonies 
on  the  g-reat  Day  of  Atonement :  "  What  then  says  he  in  the 
prophet  ?  '  And  let  them  cat  of  the  goat  which  is  offered  in 
the  fast  for  all  the  sins/  Attend  carefully  :  '  And  let  all  the 
priests  alone  eat  the  entrails  unwashed  with  vinegar J/"  And 
he  quotes  another  passage  thus  :  "  '  Take  two  goats,  good  and 
like,  and  offer  them,  and  let  the  priest  take  the  one  as  a 
burnt-offering  for  sins.*  What  then  are  they  to  do  with  the 
other?  'Cursed  is  this  one,'  says  he.  Notice  how  the  type 
of  Jesus  is  here  presented :  '  And  all  ye  spit  upon  it,  and 
pierce  it,  and  put  scarlet  wool  around  its  head,  and  thus  let 
it  be  sent  into  the  wilderaess.'  And  when  this  has  been 
done,  he  who  bears  the  goat  drives  it  into  the  wilder- 
ness, and  takes  away  the  wool,  and  places  it  on  an  herb 
called  rachie^^."  Then  Barnabas  goes  on  to  show  how  these 
goats  are  a  type  of  Christ,  the  one  led  to  the  altar  a 
t}^e  of  Christ  crucified,  and  the  other  sent  into  the  wil- 
derness a  type  of  Christ  destined  to  return  to  the  world  in 
glory,  and  like  goats  were  chosen  that  the  identity'  of  the 
crucified  Jesus  with  the  risen  Jesus  might  be  recognised. 
Now  if  the  reader  turns  to  Leviticus,  chapters  xvi.  and  xxiii., 
where  the  ceremonies  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  are  prescribed, 
he  will  fail  to  find  most  of  the  passages  which  the  writer 
has  quoted,  and  he  will  find  some  statements  contradic- 
tory of  them.  Thus  no  one  was  allowed  to  eat  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement,  neither  people  nor  priests.  Lev.  xxiii.  29. 
Then  in  Lev.  xvi.  27  we  are  told  that  every  part  of 
the  goat  was  burned ;  no  portions  were  excepted.  Again, 
nothing  is  said  of  the  similarity  of  the  goats,  or  of  the 
spitting  upon  and  pricking  of  the  scape-goat.  And  on  all 
these  points  the  Talmud  speaks  only  more  conclusively 
against  Barnabas,  because  condescending  to  more  minute 
particulars.  According  to  it,  the  priests  had  not  only  to 
fast  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  but  on  the  day  before,  and 
j  c.  7.  k  Ibid. 


IV.]  BA  EX  A  BAS.  20" 

the  scape-goat  was  not  merely  not  spit  upon  and  pricked, 
but  very  special  injunctions  are  given  not  to  let  the  slightest 
injury  come  near  it.  In  Leviticus  nothing  is  said  of  a  man 
carrying  the  goat,  or  of  wool  being  wound  round  its  head. 
The  Talmud,  however,  expressly  mentions  the  red  wool,  but 
the  wool  was  not  taken  off  the  goat.  One  part  of  it  was 
put  round  the  goat,  the  other  was  to  be  laid  on  the  rock  over 
which  the  goat  was  precipitated.  The  writer  of  this  letter 
knows  nothing  of  such  a  termination  to  the  goat^  Now  the 
argument  from  this  mistake  is  surely  a  strong  one.  Here  is 
a  rite  described  in  Leviticus,  with  which  description  Barnabas 
must  have  been  well  acquainted ;  he  had  no  doubt  compared 
the  statements  in  the  law  with  the  actual  performance  of  the 
rite  according  to  Pharisaic  tradition,  which  he  had  witnessed 
often  in  Jerusalem.  He  must  have  known  very  well  both  the 
biblical  mode  and  the  traditional  mode.  How  then  could  he 
be  the  author  of  a  production  in  which  statements  contra- 
dictor}- and  divergent  from  both  are  given  ?  In  fact,  we  may 
go  farther  and  affirm  that  the  WTiter  was  neither  accurately 
acquainted  with  the  text  of  the  law  nor  had  ever  seen  the 
celebration  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

2.  In  an  exposition  of  the  red  cow  as  a  type  of  Christ,  the 
writer  makes  the  following  statements  <"  : — That  men  in 
whom  sins  are  complete,  were  ordered  to  offer  up  a  heifer  and 
burn  it,  that  three  children  were  then  to  lift  the  ashes  and 
put  them  into  vessels,  then  twine  purple  wool  and  hyssop 
round  a  rod,  and  that  thus  the  children  were  to  sprinkle  the 
people  one  by  one,  that  they  might  be  purified  from  their 
sins.  If  Numb.  xix.  be  examined,  we  find  that  the  ashes  of 
the  red  heifer  were  used,  not  to  purify  the  people  in  general, 
but  only  those  who  had  become  impure  by  touching  dead 
bodies ;  that  there  is  not  a  word  of  men  who  were  great 
sinners  presenting  the  animal,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it 
was  presented  by  men  who,  being  clean,  became  unclean 
simply  by  performing  this  ceremony  ;  and  it  was  not  children 

'    See  Hefele,    Sendschreiben,   &c.,    p.   67,    for   a   full    exposition    of    the 
mistakes.  ™  c.  8. 


208  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

hut  a  clean  person  tliat  was  to  sj)rinkle  with  the  ashes 
of  the  heifer  the  unclean  pereon  and  everything  connected 
with  him ;  and  tliat  Barnabas  omits  all  notice  of  the  prin- 
cipal ceremony — the  priest  taking-  of  her  blood  with  his 
nn<^er  and  sprinkling-  it  directly  before  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation  seven  times.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive 
such  mistakes  to  have  been  committed  by  a  person  like 
Barnabas,  so  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  law ;  and  wi; 
may  safely  affirm  it  to  be  most  improbable.  Indeed,  the 
account  could  not  have  been  written  by  any  one  who  had  seen 
the  ceremony,  for  it  is  not  merely  at  variance  ^vith  the  Bible, 
but  at  utter  variance  with  the  Talmud,  which  directs  ex- 
pressly that  priests  only  take  part  in  the  ceremony,  that  they 
be  kept  clean  for  seven  days  previous,  and  excepts  boys  who 
have  not  reached  the  age  of  intelligence  taking  any  part  even 
in  the  sprinkling". 

3.  The  other  mistake  is  of  a  different  nature.  The  waiter 
remarks"  :  "  The  Scripture  says,  Abraham  circumcised  of  his 
house  318  men.'^  The  passage  is  nowhere  to  be  found.  But 
there  is  unquestionably  a  mistake  in  the  statement,  for 
Abraham  had  318  slaves  born  in  his  own  house  when  he 
went  against  the  five  kings  to  rescue  Lot,  and  as  it  is 
also  stated  that  he  circumcised  not  only  the  men  born  in  his 
house,  but  also  those  bought  with  money  of  the  stranger, 
the  number  he  cireimicised  must  have  been  greater.  This 
is  not  the  only  blunder  which  the  writer  commits  here ;  he 
has  made  an  oversight  which  is  far  more  decisive  against 
the  authorship  of  Barnabas  than  a  mere  lapse  of  memor3^ 
The  writer  allegorizes  on  this  number  as  if  the  Old  Testa- 
ment had  been  written  in  Greek.  The  Greek  letters  being 
used  for  numbers,  he  finds  in  318  the  name  of  Jesus  and 
an  intimation  of  the  Cross,  a  piece  of  gnosis  which  he 
would  scarcely  have  perpetrated  had  he  not  been  so  much 
accustomed  to  the  Scriptures  in  Greek  as  to  have  forgotten 
that  Hebrew  letters  had  been  originall}'  used  in  indicating  the 
number. 

"  llefele,  Sendsclireibeii.  &c.,  p.  75.  "  c.  9. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  20f' 

4.  We  might  add  among-  such  mistakes  as  Barnabas  would 
have  probably  avoided  a  slip  in  the  history  of  Joshua,  and  a 
very  frequent  quoting  of  passages  as  from  Scripture  which 
are  not  to  be  found  in  our  Bibles.  We  do  not  feel  inclined 
to  lay  stress  on  such  mis-statements  ;  they  have  some  weight 
in  them  taken  along  with  the  others,  but  they  could  not 
overpower  strong  external  e^ddenceJ  as  we  have  no  right  to 
determine  beforehand  the  limits  even  of  an  apostle's  falli- 
bility in  such  matters. 

II.  The  epistle  was  probably  written  after  the  death  of 
Barnabas.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  mentioned  in  the 
letter.  Now  we  know  that  John  Mark  was  associated  with 
Paul  before  that  event,  that  Paul  mentions  John  Mark 
oftener  than  once,  but  that  he  does  not  say  anything  of 
Barnabas,  except  in  so  far  as  he  describes  him  to  be  the  uncle 
of  Mark ;  and  the  inference  is  that  Barnabas  had  died  before 
Paul  wrote,  and  therefore  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  p  . 
The  inference  is  not  an  inevitable  one,  but  it  may  be  taken  as 
a  considerable  help  amidst  an  utter  want  of  positive  state- 
ment. 

III.  The  writer  asserts  that  every  Syrian,  Arabian,  and  all 
the  priests  of  idols  are  circumcised^.  Josephus'"  asserts  that 
the  only  Syrians  that  were  subjected  to  circumcision  were  the 
Syrians  of  Palestine.  We  have  here  therefore  an  unquestion- 
able mistake.  Now  is  it  likely  that  Barnabas,  who  had  been 
for  so  long  a  time  resident  in  Antioch,  the  capital  of  un- 
circumcised  Syria,  as  we  may  call  it,  would  be  so  misinformed 
as  to  commit  such  a  mistake  ? 

IV.  The  absurd  statements  with  regard  to  the  habits  of 
animals  have  seemed  to  some  inconsistent  mth  the  character 
which  we  must  assign  to  Barnabas  as  an  apostle.  I  cannot 
regard  this  argument  as  strong,  for  we  have  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  apostles  were  well  acquainted  with  the  habits 
of  animals,  and  still  less  reason  have  we  for  fancying  that  any 

P  Hefele,  Sendschreiben,  p.  37.  'i  c.  9. 

■■  Contra  Apion.  I.  xxii.  ;  Bekker,  vol.  vi.  p.  200 ;  and  Archseol.,  lib.  viii. 
10.  3. 

VOL.  I.  P 


•210  THE    A  I'OSTOLICAL    FA  THE  IIS.         [Chap. 

Divine  interposition  would  take  place  to  prevent  their  minds 
from  accepting-  as  truth  what  now  appears  to  us  ridiculous 
fictions. 

V.  The  tasteless  allegorizings  and  the  writer's  evident 
delig-ht  in  discovering  hidden  meanin<^s  in  Scripture  are 
unworthy  of  an  apostle.  This  arg-ument  goes  for  something', 
but  I  do  not  think  of  itself  it  could  at  all  stand  out  against 
g-ood  external  evidence.  There  is  more  force  in  it,  however, 
if  we  reflect  that  no  work  of  the  first  centur}',  putting  out  of 
sight  this  letter,  contains  such  an  immoderate  amount  of  alle- 
gory, and  lays  such  stress  on  yvQxri'i,  that  intelligence  which 
sees  beneath  the  carnal  of  the  Old  Testament  deep  spiritual 
truths.  The  tone  of  the  work  is  entirely  out  of  keeping,  if 
we  rank  the  book  among  apostolic  writings,  while  it  stands 
as  a  fit  companion  to  many  works  of  the  second  century. 
Even  this  argument,  however,  is  not  one  that  could  be  urged 
very  strongly.  For  why  should  not  one  man  have  an- 
ticipated the  tone  of  an  age  subsequent  to  him — nay,  in  some 
measure  have  given  rise  to  it  ?  Or  might  not  other  books 
of  a  similar  nature  have  perished  ? 

VI.  The  writer  speaks  of  the  apostles  as  having  before 
their  conversion  been  guilty  of  the  grossest  sins^,  {v-n'kp  ■nacrai; 
aixapTiav  avoixutrepoL).  Such  an  expression  is  regarded  as  un- 
worthy of  Barnabas,  the  statement  being  untrue,  and  more 
like  that  of  a  rhetorician  of  the  second  century  than  that 
of  an  apostle  of  the  first.  That  the  statement  as  applied  to 
some  is  untrue,  we  know  from  the  gospels ;  that  it  is  true  of 
any  but  Paul,  who  was  guilty  of  the  most  merciless  cruelty, 
and  perhaps  of  Matthew,  we  cannot  affirm  from  the  New 
Testament.  Yet  there  may  have  been  some  truth  in  it. 
There  is  certainly  nothing  unlikely  in  it,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  probability  in  its  favour,  as  Christ  took  up  with 
publicans  and  sinners  for  the  most  part ;  and,  consequently, 
we  cannot  attach  any  weight  to  this  argument. 

These  are  the  arguments  which  have  been  brought  to 
prove    that    Barnabas   was    not    the    author    of  the    epistle. 

'  c.  5. 


IV.]  BARXABAS.  211 

Some  of  them  are  not  satisfactory,  others  would  never 
establish  the  point,  but  form  a  portion  of  cumulative  evi- 
dence, while  the  first  we  cannot  but  deem  as  settling-  the 
question  conclusively.  In  fact,  there  is  no  way  of  getting" 
over  the  difficulty.  An  attempt  has  been  made  by  Schenkel 
to  obviate  the  force  of  these  objections.  He  has  tried  to 
show  that  a  large  portion  of  the  epistle  is  spurious,  and 
that  the  main  design  of  the  epistle  was  not  to  attack 
Judaism,  but  to  explain  the  object  of  Christ^s  coming  to 
earth.  His  attempt,  however,  is  an  utter  failure,  not  worthy 
of  present  consideration.  Hefele*  has  once  for  all  completely 
demolished  the  theory,  and  it  need  now  only  be  mentioned  as 
a  warning  for  future  speculators,  not  as  contributing  to  any 
insight  into  the  subject  in  hand. 

There  is  nothing-  to  prevent  us  believing  that  Barnabas  was 
really  the  name  of  the  writer — but  of  this  Barnabas  we  know 
nothing.  There  is  no  end  of  conjectm-es  with  regard  to  the 
authorship.  Le  Moyne  went  so  far  as  to  suppose  Polycarp 
to  be  the  writer^. 

The  question  which  we  have  next  to  discuss  is,  who  were 
the  persons  to  whom  the  letter  was  addressed.  Origen  calls 
the  letter  a  catholic  letter,  (eTrtaroA?/  KaOoKLKi']).  Modern 
scholars  have  supposed  that  Origen  so  called  it  because  he 
found  no  special  description  of  the  readers.  Origen,  however, 
uses  the  term  exactly  as  it  is  applicable  to  the  catholic  epistles 
of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for 
supposing  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  one  single  church. 
It  was  written  for  a  much  wider  circle  of  readers.  The  writer,  it 
is  true,  speaks  of  their  progress  in  the  divine  life,  and  therefore 
we  must  suppose  that  he  was  to  a  certain  extent  cognizant  of 
the  affairs  of  his  readers ;  but  we  find  similar  statements  in  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  it 
is  expressly  affirmed  in  i  Peter  and  James  that  the  letters 
were  intended  for  only  a  certain  class.      The  writer  again 

*  Das  Sendschreiben,  pp.  ■203  fF. 

°  Var.   Sacr.,    vol.  i.    Prolegg.   p.    2 2.      On   the   various   conjectures   see 
especially  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Eccl.,  j>p.  41,  42  ;     Henke,  p.  53. 

P    2 


212  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap, 

iiifoniis  his  readers  that,  wliile  he  speaks  to  them,  many  good 
thing's  have  g-one  well  with  him  in  the  way  of  the  equity  of 
God,  "  dum  ad  vos  adloquor,  mnlta  mihi  bona  suceesserunt  in 
via  sequitatis  Domini."  These  words,  viewed  in  their  con- 
nexion, have  been  taken  to  mean  that  the  writer  had  much 
success  in  proclaiming-  the  g-ospel  among  his  readers  in 
previous  periods.  They  certainly  may  mean  this,  but  they 
may  mean,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  they  do  mean,  that  not  only 
have  his  readers  the  Spirit  of  God  in  them  by  his  help  and 
that  of  others,  but  ho  himself  is  fully  persuaded  that,  while 
in  the  act  of  addressing  them,  the  Sjnrit  has  suggested  to 
him  new  and  deep  conceptions  of  the  dealings  and  words 
of  God  ^.  The  writer  further  tells  them  that  he  is  always 
ready  to  give  his  readers  a  share  of  what  wisdom  he  himself 
has  received ;  and  in  one  passage  he  assures  his  readers  that 
no  one  had  received  from  him  a  truer  saying  than  what  he 
gave  them  in  the  immediate  context,  but  that  they  were 
worthy  of  it.  These  expressions  have  been  adduced  by  Hefele 
as  qualifying  the  statement  of  Origen,  but  a  glance  at  the 
Catholic  epistles  of  the  New  Testament  will  show  that  this 
one  is  as  worthy  of  the  title  as  any  of  them.  Nor  can  we  go 
the  length  of  feeling  assured  that  the  writer  was  either  a 
missionary  or  regular  preacher  among  the  people  whom  he 
addresses.  He  may  have  been,  but  we  cannot  affirm  that  he 
must  have  been.  The  persons  addressed  are  most  generally 
called  children,  sons  and  daughters;  but  he  also  speaks  of 
them  as  bi-others '',  and  oftener  than  once  he  assures  them  that 
he  does  not  wish  to  lav  claim  to  any  superiority,  but  to  address 
them  as  one  of  themselves. 

We  know  nothing  of  the  locality  in  which  the  readers  or 
writer  of  the    letter  dwelt.      An    early  critic    attempted    to 

"^  Tischendorf's  text  is  in  favour  of  the  second  meaning.  It  is,  a\]vi!)uiv 
i  xavTif  'on  iv  v^v  Xa\i)aas  iroWa.  tiriffTa/xat  Sti  ifiol  avvaiSevafv  4v  6S^  Si- 
Ko,  uavvTis  KVftios  :  '  Being  conscious  to  myself  that  having  spoken  among 
you  I  know  many  things  because  the  Lord  journeyed  with  me  in  the  way  of 
righteousness.' 

='  CO.  3,  6.  The  word  '  brothers'  occurs  also  in  c.  1 ,  but  tlie  reading  is  doubt- 
ful in  Latin,  and  Tischendorf's  text  omits  it. 


IV.]  BARXAJiAS.  -'13 

determine  the  plaee,  fixing  on  Alexandria  >' ;  but  his  attempt 
is  a  series  of  baseless  conjectures.  The  only  question  with 
reference  both  to  the  readers  and  writer  on  which  we  can  with 
some  chance  of  success  reHeet  is  whether  they  were  Jewish 
or  heathen  Christians.  That  they  were  Jewish  Christians 
has  been  inferred  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  work.  What 
would  be  the  use,  it  is  said,  of  showing  that  the  law  was  not 
obligatory,  that  Jews  were  no  longer  required  to  offer  sacri- 
fices, to  keep  the  sabbath  or  to  worship  in  the  temple,  if  the 
readers  had  been  originally  heathens.  And  then  an  appeal  is 
made  to  the  style  of  reasoning  as  calculated  to  satisfy  only 
those  wlio  had  once  been  Jews.  We  cannot  but  think  that 
there  is  a  radical  mistake  in  these  arguments.  It  is  entirely 
forgotten  that  all  Christians  regarded  the  Jewish  scriptures 
as  sacred,  that  all  of  them  had  therefore  an  infinite  interest 
in  understanding  them,  and  that  consequently  they  had  to 
grapple  with  the  very  difficulty  which  the  writer  here  tries  to 
overcome.  Were  they  to  take  the  law  literally  ?  If  not,  is  it 
possible  that  God  could  have  commanded  once  what  was  now 
obsolete  and  to  be  neglected?  Or  was  there  beneath  all  the 
outward  rites  enjoined  a  meaning  which  enlightenment  could 
make  visible  to  the  Christian  mind  ?  These  are  inquiries 
which  must  have  been  suggested  to  all  Christians,  Jews  or 
not  Jews,  and  therefore  there  is  nothing  in  the  subject-matter 
compelling  us  to  believe  that  either  the  readers  or  writer  were 
originally  Jewish.  Beyond  this  general  tenor,  there  is  no 
single  passage  which  gives  the  shadow  of  support  to  the 
notion  that  they  were  Jewish  Christians^.  On  the  contrary, 
there  are  indications  that  the  great  majority  of  the  readers 
had  originally  been  heathen.  We  cannot  make  an  express 
affirmation  with  regard  to  the  writer,  because  it  is  natural  for 
a  writer  to  identify  himself  with  his  readers.  Yet  even  with 
regard  to  him  is  it  likely  that,  if  he  had  been  trained  in  the 

>  Tentzel  in  Fabric.  Bibl.  Eccles.  p.  42. 

'  Appeal  i.s  made  to  such  passages  as  we  have  already  noticed  in  Clemens 
Romanus,  where  Jews  are  spoken  of  as  'our  fathers.'  Hefele  has  brought  toge- 
ther all  the  argxunents  for  the  Jewish  origin  of  the  writer :  Sendschreiben,  \7gff. 


214  THE  APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

Jewish  faith  and  had  been  much  accustomed  to  the  Jewish 
Scripturt's,  he  would  have  so  frequently  misquoted  Scripture, 
misrepresented  Jewish  customs,  and  argued  as  if  the  Bible 
had  been  written  in  Greek  ?  We  do  not  mean  to  set  it  down 
as  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the  writer  had  been  converted 
from  heathenism  :  but  the  extraordinary  number  of  his  mis- 
representations of  Scripture  and  Jewish  practices,  and  the 
vehemence  of  his  denunciation  of  Judaism,  may  be  taken  to 
weigh  rather  against  his  Jewish  origin  than  for  it.  In  fact, 
one  of  the  mistakes,  the  ap])eal  to  the  Greek  letters  as  num- 
bers, is  conclusive  proof  of  the  writer^s  habitual  use  of  the 
Greek  Scriptures.  The  theory  of  Neander,  however,  that  the 
writer  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  obviates  the  force  of  any 
inferences  that  might  be  drawn  from  this  mistake.  Others 
besides  him  have  thought  that  both  the  waiter  and  readers 
belonged  to  Alexandria.  They  account  in  this  way  for  the 
extraordinary  phenomenon  which  the  letter  presents — the 
complete  separation  of  ritualistic  Judaism  from  Christianity. 
Schenkel  especially  has  tried  to  show  that  the  persons  to 
whom  that  portion  of  the  letter  which  he  regards  as  alone 
genuine  was  addressed  were  Alexandrian  Jews.  But  his 
arguments  are  so  weak  that  they  do  not  deserve  mention. 
The  most  weighty  is  adduced  from  a  passage  where  the  writer 
says,  "  Ye  ought  not  to  separate  yourselv^es  as  if  justified  *." 
Schenkel  supposes  an  allusion  here  to  the  Therapeutse  of 
Alexandria,  but  the  supposition  is  utterly  groundless ;  for 
there  is  nothing  in  the  statement  of  Barnabas  at  all  character- 
istic. There  is  a  great  deal  more  weight  in  the  arguments 
adduced  by  Hilgenfeld  for  the  Alexandrian  origin  of  the 
letter.  The  extraordinary  development  and  extension  of  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  he  thinks,  can  be  accounted  for  in  no 
way  but  by  supposing  that  the  wi-iter  was  influenced  by  the 
Alexandrian  philosophy.  And  he  farther  finds  traces  of  this 
philosophy  in  the  expressions  yr]  iracryovaa ''  and  8oy//ara  *^. 
The  inference  g-oes  on  the  supposition  that  a  man  who  was 
influenced  l)y  the  Alexandrian  Religious-Philosophy  was  a 
"  c.  4.  ''  c.  6.  •■  cc.  9,  10. 


IV.]  /iARXAJiA.S.  ii:, 

resident  in  Alexandria''.  The  evidence  tliat  the  readers  also 
had  in  the  main  been  heathens,  is  not  strong,  but  still 
decisive  enough  in  the  midst  of  an  utter  want  of  evidence 
on  the  other  side.  It  consists  of  three  passages,  i.  The 
writer  says,  "  We  ought  therefore  to  inquire,  brethren, 
concerning  our  salvation,  that  the  devil  may  at  no  time  have 
entrance  into  us  and  turn  us  away  from  our  life  ^."  Now  is  it 
likely  that  the  writer  would  so  speak  to  them  had  they  at 
one  time  before  this  been  sunk  in  the  carnality  of  Judaism  ? 
Woidd  he  not  have  spoken  of  their  returning  to  Judaism,  or 
being  led  astra}"  again  into  it  ?  2.  "  God  hath  shown  to  all 
of  us  beforehand  that  we  may  not  run  as  proselytes  into 
the  observance  of  the  law  of  the  Jews^."  How  would  the 
writer  speak  of  them  becoming  proselytes  had  they  been 
one  time  Jews,  and  how  could  he  represent  the  danger 
as  a  novel  one  if  they  had  formerly  been  under  the  law  ? 
3.  ''  Before  we  put  our  confidence  in  God,  the  habitation  of 
our  heart  was  corruptible  and  weak,  as  Ijeing  in  truth  a  shrine 
built  with  hands  :  for  it  was  full  of  idolatry  and  the  house  of 
demons,  because  we  did  what  was  contrary  to  God's  wills." 
These  words  are  certainly  a  more  exact  description  of  the 
conversion  of  heathens  than  of  the  conversion  of  Jews.  One 
would  have  expected  a  different  turn  of  expression  if  the 
readers  had  at  one  time  been  Jews''.  It  is  indeed  not 
absolutely  inapplicable  to  Jews,  but  it  is  more  applicable  to 
heathens.  We  regard  it  then  as  very  probable  that  the  readers 
were  mostly  heathens.  But  at  the  same  time  we  cannot  fancy 
that  at  the  time  the  letter  was  written  an  accurate  distinction 
was  drawn  between  Jewish  and  heathen  Christians.  At  a 
very  early  period  the  apostles  turned  from  the  Jews  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  others,  and  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Christian 
churches  the   heathens   must  have  formed  by    far  the  most 

••  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vater,  p.  43  ;  comp.  i8,  note  14  ;  and  see  Neander's 
Church  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  406,  and  p.  22,  note  (Bohn's  edition). 

•  c.  2.  '  c.  3.  8  c.  16. 

''  Schenkel  adduced  this  and  other  passages  to  prove  that  there  were  traces 
in  the  letter  of  a  christian  interpolator  who  had  been  a  heathen.  See  also 
Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Viiter.  p.  32. 


216  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

numerous  class,  though  Jews  may  liave  been  more  or  less 
mixed  with  them.  The  difRculty  of  making-  an  exact  distinc- 
tion as  to  the  class  of  readers  would  be  vastly  increased  if  the 
letter  was  addressed  not  to  one  church  but  to  Christians 
throughout  a  large  district.  We  thus  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  Christians  as  Christians, 
whatever  they  had  been  before,  and  we  deem  it  most  probable 
that  the  great  mass  of  those  addressed  had  been  at  one  time 
given  to  the  worship  of  idols. 

The  date  of  the  letter  next  claims  our  attention.  We  have 
already  seen  that  it  could  not  have  been  written  before  a.d.  70. 
The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  expressly  mentioned.  This  is 
the  earliest  date  that  can  possibl}^  be  assigned  to  it.  Tlien,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  must  have  been  written  at  least  several 
years  before  the  work  in  which  Clemens  Alexandriuus  quotes 
it  was  written,  and  this  forms  the  limit  on  the  other  hand. 
And  here  we  think  we  must  let  the  matter  rest.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  letter  to  bring  us  nearer  to  the  exaOt  date. 
As  some,  however,  have  ventured  to  fix  almost  the  exact 
year,  we  must  examine  their  arguments.  1.  The  sentence 
in  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  mentioned  runs  thus  : 
"  For  on  account  of  their  warring  the  temple  was  destroyed 
by  enemies.  Now  also  those  very  servants  of  the  enemies 
shall  build  it  up'.''  Gallandi  changes  the  punctuation  and 
reads,  "  For  on  account  of  their  warring  the  temple  has  been 
destroyed  now :"  that  is,  a  year  or  two  ago  :  and  accord- 
ingly he  fixes  on  the  years  between  71  and  73  as  the 
period  in  the  course  of  which  it  was  written.  Tlie  objections 
to  this  plan  is  that  the  punctuation  is  bad  and  made  for  the 
theory,  and  that  no  slighter  basis  for  a  theory  could  possibly 
l)e  imagined.  2.  In  the  passage  already  quoted  with  regard 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  it  is  said  that  the  enemies  of 
the  Jews  would  rebuild  it.  The  writer  mentions  this  pro- 
phecy oftener  than  once,  and  speaks  of  it  as  in  the  course  of 
fulfilment.  The  fulfilment  of  it  is  made  to  consist  in  the 
heathen  l)uilding  u]i  a  spiritual  temple  to  God  in  their  hearts. 

c.  16. 


IV.]  B.4ByABAS.  2]  7 

Now,  says  Hefele,  the  writer  in  speaking  of  the  recon- 
struction of  the  temple  could  scarcely  have  been  silent  in 
reg-ard  to  the  rebuilding-  of  the  city,  had  ^lia  Capitolina 
been  really  founded.  Therefore  the  letter  was  written  before 
the  founding  of  ^Elia  Capitolina  by  Hadrian  in  a.d.  i  19J.  But 
this  argument  is  wholly  wrong.  The  writer  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  city  :  it  is  entirel}''  with  the  temple.  And  it 
would  be  a  digression  to  haul  in  -^lia  Capitolina.  The 
wi'iter  mentions  a  prophecy  that  the  city  and  people  as  well 
as  the  temple  would  be  delivered  up,  to  add  force  to  the  utter 
abolition  of  Judaism,  but  this  he  does  merely  incidentally. 
And  even  had  it  been  part  of  his  subject,  no  one  would  have 
fancied  the  existence  of  a  Roman  city  on  the  ruins  of  the 
Jewish  as  standing  in  the  way  of  his  statement.  Hilgen- 
feld'^  appeals  to  another  passage  which  he  takes  to  refer  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  words  are,  "  Ye  under- 
stand that,  since  ye  have  seen  (cum  videritis)  so  great  signs 
and  prodigies  (monstra)  in  the  people  of  the  Jews,  and  thus 
God  has  left  them'.'^  He  lays  especial  stress  on  the  words 
"  since  ye  have  seen,^^  which  he  regards  as  proof  that  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  took  place  in  the  lifetime  of  the  readers. 
But  he  has  laid  far  too  much  weight  on  the  words.  For  first  he 
has  to  give  good  reason  why  these  signs  mean  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  nothing  else ;  for  the  words  can  apply  as 
well  to  the  final  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  their  own  land 
after  the  war  of  Barcoehba  as  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  could  certainly  include  both  events.  Then  the 
argument  has  no  force  unless  the  words  '^  since  ye  have 
seen^'  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense.  But  no  one  would 
have  any  right  to  maintain  that  Barnabas^s  argument  was 
good  only  if  the  persons  addressed  saw  with  their  own  eyes 
the  signs  and  wonders.  Then  if  he  means  "  seeing  with  the 
mind,"  they  might  see  the  signs  and  wonders  long  after  the 
events  had  happened.     The   Greek   of  Tischendorf  does   not 

i  Hefele  adopts  the   date  of  the  Chrouicon  Paschale.     See  Clinton,  Fasti 
Romani,  vol.  i.  p.  118. 

I"  Apost.  Vater,  p.  36.  'c.  4. 


218  THE  AFOHTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

admit  of  the  application  made  by  Hilg-eiif'eld.  Translated  it 
is,  "when  ye  see  that  after  so  great  signs  and  wonders 
having  taken  place  in  Israel  even  thus  they  have  been 
abandoned."  The  Latin,  however,  seems  to  me  more  likely 
to  be  nearer  the  original  than  the  Greek.  3.  Hefele  remarks, 
on  the  authority  of  Sulpicius  Severus,  that  ^^^th  the  termi- 
nation of  the  second  Jewish  war  terminated  the  strifes  of  the 
Jewish  Christians,  and  therefore  the  letter  must  have  been 
uTitten  before  the  year  137.  We  have  already  replied  to  this 
by  sho\%ang  that  there  is  no  reason  for  regarding  the  letter  as 
addressed  to  Jewish  Christians,  and  we  may  add  that  the 
authority  of  Sulpicius  Severus  could  not  go  for  much  if  we 
had  to  weigh  it.  4.  Hefele  takes  the  statement,  "  the 
enemies  will  rebuild  the  temple,^'  as  applying  to  the  Romans 
exclusively:  and  as  in  the  passage  the  enemies  are  represented 
as  beginning  to  do  the  work,  he  infers  the  letter  was  written 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Roman  Church.  This  is  pressing 
the  words  too  closelj'.  The  writer  evidently  takes  the  ser- 
vants of  the  enemies  to  mean  the  heathen  in  general,  and 
has  no  thought  of  the  Romans  especially,  who  were  not 
the  servants  but  the  enemies  themselves.  The  enemies  in- 
clude both  servants  and  masters  :  and  therefore  the  prophecy 
that  those  who  destroyed  the  temple  would  rebuild  it,  finds 
its  accomplishment  in  the  spread  of  the  gospel  among  the 
heathen  Romans  and  all  the  nations  subject  to  them.  We 
have  therefore  here  no  clue  to  the  date.  5.  Origen  tells  us 
that  Celsus  spoke  of  the  apostles  as  having  been  men  of  bad 
character,  and  he  supposes  that  Celsus  must  have  grounded 
his  statement  on  the  words  of  this  letter  already  quoted, 
vTi\p  TTaaav  aixapriav  di-ojucorepouy,  and  therefore  it  is  inferred 
that  this  letter  was  written  before  the  work  of  Celsus,  that 
is,  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Here  we  have 
simply  a  conjecture  of  Origen^ s,  but  how  we  are  to  judge  of 
the  probability  of  this  conjecture  we  have  no  means  of  de- 
termining. Origen  may  have  had  good  reasons  for  thinking 
so,  but  we  do  not  know.  And  yet  we  take  this  to  be  about 
the  strongest  hint  that  we  have.    6.  It  has  also  been  remarked 


IV.]  /^AJiXABAS.  219 

that  in  some  jMSS.  the  letter  of  Barnabas  is  placed  after  the 
letter  of  Polycarp,  and  it  is  inferred  therefore  that  the  person 
who  put  it  in  that  place  must  have  regarded  it  as  shortly 
posterior  to  the  letter  of  Polycarp,  and  consequently  the  date 
of  the  writing-  is  placed  between  a.d  107  and  120.  But  the 
inference  here  is  purely  gratuitous,  as  might  be  shown  by 
innumerable  instances  of  productions  of  different  eras  being 
sewed  together  without  respect  of  date.  And  even  if  it  were 
certain,  the  opinion  of  the  person  who  piit  them  together 
could  not  count  for  much,  unless  we  knew  a  good  deal 
more  about  him.  And  then  we  should  have  to  make 
ourselves  sure  about  the  date  of  the  letter  of  Polycarp. 
7.  Hefele  finds  allusions  to  the  Ebionites  and  Docetes  in 
the  letter,  and  therefore  he  supposes  it  must  have  been 
written  at  the  same  time  as  the  letters  of  Ignatius  which 
make  mention  of  the  same  classes  of  heretics.  But  the 
allusions  are  too  remote  to  build  any  satisfactory  conclusion 
on.  Those  to  the  Ebionites  consist  entirely  in  the  general 
tenor  of  the  letter,  and  especially  in  the  writer's  accusation 
of  the  Jews  that  they  honoured  the  temple  as  being  the 
house  of  God'u,  and  in  his  rebutting  the  inference  that  Christ 
was  man  drawn  from  the  appellation  given  Him  of  "  the  Son 
of  David".''  The  allusions  to  the  Docetes  are  found  only  in 
the  emphatic  manner  in  which  the  writer  several  times 
affirms  that  Christ  had  appeared  in  the  flesh".  8.  The 
coincidence  of  the  writer  with  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian 
in  the  mistakes  already  noticed  with  regard  to  some  Jewish 
rites,  is  thought  to  indicate  that  the  date  of  the  letter  must 
be  placed  somewhere  in  the  second  century.  The  coincidence 
is  all  the  more  striking  that  Justin  Martyr  makes  no 
mention  of  Barnabas,  and  from  the  single  remark  which 
Tertullian  makes  with  regard  to  that  apostle,  we  conjecture 
that  he  mistook  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  for  the  letter  of 
BarnabasP.  The  coincidence  is  rendered  more  puzzling  by 
some  considerable  differences "i. 

">  c.  16.     See  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Hier.  i.  26.  "  c.  12.  "  cc.  5,  6. 

•■  Tertull.  De  Pudif.  c.  20.     See  also  Hieron.  De  Yiris  Illiist.  4,  5  :   "  Epistola 


220  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

A  few  other  points  have  been  adduced  as  indicating  the 
date,  but  of  a  kind  totally  unsatisfactory.  We  therefore 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  must  have  Ijeen  wTitten  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that  it  could  not  have  been 
written  after  the  close  of  the  second  century,  but  that  there 
is  no  certain  way  of  fixing"  on  any  intervening-  date  as  the 
period  of  its  composition.  Most  have  been  inclined  to  place  it 
not  later  than  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  The 
whole  cast  of  the  letter  seems  to  me  to  require  a  later  date, 
but  this  is  a  matter  of  personal  feeling-. 

The  object  of  the  letter  is  stated  in  the  first  chapter  to  be 
that  the  readers  "  might  have  their  knowledge  perfect  along 
with  their  faith.^'  In  other  words,  Barnabas  wished  especially 
to  disclose  to  his  readers  the  discoveries  of  his  yvSxns.  And 
here  and  there  in  the  letter  he  sjjcaks  with  very  great 
satisfaction  of  his  accomplishments  in  this  way.  Thus  after 
giving  one  of  the  most  trifling  and  contemptible  of  his 
allegorical  interpretations,  he  adds,  "  No  one  ever  learned 
a  truer  piece  of  reason,  {yin^atcaTepov  \6yov).  But  I  know 
that  ye  are  worthy .^^ 

As  we  have  seen,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  Bar- 
nabas had  any  Christian  heretics  in  his  mind  while  wanting. 
All  that  he  says  of  them  would  apply  as  strongly  to  Jews 
as  to  Ebionites.  The  most  remarkable  passage  is  that  re- 
ferred to  already,  which  runs  as  follows  :  "  AVhen  they  are 
going  to  say  that  Christ  is  the  son  of  David,  fearing  and 
understanding  the  error  of  sinners,  he  says*".^'  The  Jews  might 
in  opposition  to  Christians  maintain  that  the  jSIessiah  was  the 
Son  of  David  merely,  and  some  of  them  seem  to  have  been 
of  this  opinion,  at  least  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  we  shall 
find  the  same  opinit)n  in  Justin^s  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho.^' 

autem,  qiue  fertur  ad  Hebraos  non  ejiis  (Pauli)  creditur  propter  styli  senmmis- 
que  dissonantium  sed  rel  Barnabce  juxta  Terttdlianum,  rel  Lucce."  Comp. 
Pliilastrius  de  Hser.  c.  89  ;  and  the  notes  of  Fabricius  on  it  in  Oehler's 
Corpus  Haereseologicum,  vol.  i.  p.  84. 

'1  See  this  whole  subject  admirably  discussed  in  Hefele,  Sendschreiben,  &c., 
pp.  184-192. 


IV.]  BAJiXABAS.  221 

There  is  no  sufficient  evidence  for  supposing  that  Barnabas 
alludes  to  the  Docetes  or  to  Gnosticisms  His  only  wish 
is  to  prevent  his  readers  from  falling-  into  a  mere  carnal 
Jewish  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  words,  "  Ye  ought  not  to  draw  yourselves  apart  as  if 
alread}-  made  righteous,  but  coming  together  into  the  same 
place,  incpiire  what  is  for  the  common  good  and  advantage 
of  the  beloved',"  are  too  indefinite  to  warrant  any  inference 
as  to  the  class  meant.  Perhaps  it  was  not  a  class  at  all, 
but  some  individuals  here  and  there,  as  in  Heb.  x.  25,  who 
acfed  as  if  they  required  no  exhortation  to  goodness.  They 
may  not  have  definitely  supposed  that  their  righteousness 
was  complete. 

The  only  other  question  which  remains  to  be  discussed 
is  the  integrity  of  the  epistle.  We  have  already  mentioned 
that  Schenkel  has  attempted  to  show  that  many  chapters 
are  interpolations"  :  but  as  he  proceeds  on  the  arbitrary 
assumption  of  a  particular  pui-pose  for  which  the  letter  is 
said  to  be  written,  and  appeals  to  no  external  evidence,  he  is 
entirely  unsuccessful.  Indeed,  external  evidence  is  entirely 
against  him.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  quotes  several  of  the 
chapters  which  he  has  marked  out  as  spurious.  ]\Iore  rational 
objection  has  been  taken  to  the  second  part^,  because  its 
style  is  more  clear,  exact,  and  accurate  than  that  of  the 
first,  and  because  the  second  part  is  not  given  in  the  Latin 
translation. 

The  second  part,  how^ever,  is  expressly  referred  to  by 
Origeny,  part  of  it  is  quoted  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
(Strom,  ii.  c.  i8.  p.  472),  words  in  it  are  alluded  to  by 
Jerome  (Interpret.  Verb.  Hebr.),  and  it  occurs  in  all  the 
Greek  manuscripts.  External  evidence  is  therefore  decisive 
in  its  favour,  and  the  difference  of  style  is  well  accoimted 
for  by  the  change  of  subject.     In  the  second  part  the  writer 

'  See  Domer,  Entwicklungs-geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  167.  '  c  4. 

"  Several  scholars  before  him  were  of  this  opinion  :  Clericus,  H.  E.  p.  474  ; 
Cotta,  K.  H.  vol.  i.  p.  643. 

x  By  Vitringa,  Hypotyp.  H.S.  p.  228;  Le  Moj-ne,  Varia Sacra,  vol.  ii.  p.  929. 
y  De  Princip.  iii.  2,  4. 


•2_>->  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

deals  with  plaiu  moral  })reoei)ts,  of  which  he  must  have  had 
a  clear  conception,  and  which  are  expressed  in  short  sen- 
tences. The  first  part,  on  the  other  hand,  deals  with  subjects 
difficult  of  explanation,  which  were  not  completely  seen  on 
all  sides  by  the  writer,  and  which  he  did  not  expect  his 
readers  to  understand  without  some  thought  and  study. 
That  there  may  have  been  interpolations  in  the  work  is 
most  likely,  but  that  they  must  have  been  inconsiderable 
we  cannot  doubt.  To  us,  parts  of  the  nineteenth  chapter 
seem  to  have  been  interpolated.  The  writer  repeats  fre- 
quently the  same  idea,  most  unnecessarily,  though  this  is 
rather  like  himself  as  he  appears  in  the  first  part.  The 
subject  admits  of  indefinite  extension  without  detriment  to 
the  connexion.  Many  of  the  precepts  found  their  way  into 
other  books,  and  so  the  text  in  the  extracted  copy  may  have 
been  mixed  up  with  the  text  of  the  letter  itself.  And  there 
are  two  conuiiands  which  appear  to  me  more  worthy  of  a 
later  age  than  of  the  second  centur}-.  They  are  these  : 
I.  "By  thy  hands  thou  shalt  work  for  the  redemption  of 
sins."  Such  an  exhortation  can  be  paralleled  from  no  con- 
temporary writer.  2.  "Thou  shalt  hate  the  wicked  man  to 
the  last.^^  In  direct  contrariety  to  this  Christ  said,  "  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  enemy  ;"  and  no  hatred  was  permitted.  The 
sentence  might  mean,  according  to  the  common  text^,  "  Thou 
shalt  hate  the  wicked  one  to  the  last,"  but  even  thus  it  does 
not  sound  like  a  precept  of  the  second  century  of  Christianity*. 
These,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  are  the  advices  of  a  later 
age. 

Of  the  religious  character  of  the  letter  almost  nothing 
need  be  said  here.  Some  of  those  who  trace  the  diti'erent 
styles  of  the  apostles,  discover  in  this  letter  Pauliuism,  but 
Paulinism  in  its  negative  character,  and  already  tending 
towards  the   Gnosticism  of  the  second  century'*.     How   far 

'  Tischendorf's  Greek  omits  the  article  before  irovriplv. 

»  A  similar  precept  is  found  in  the  longer  Greek  form  of  Ign.  ad  Phil.  c.  3, 
"  You  ought  to  hate  those  who  hate  God  ;"  but  the  context  shows  that  real 
hatred  is  not  meant,  but,  on  the  contrary,  love. 

*"  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Titer,  p.  43. 


IV.]  BARXABAS.  223 

this  assertion  is  true  with  regard  to  Pauliiiism^  we  leave  the 
reader  to  judg'e  for  himself.  With  regard  to  Gnosticism, 
we  see  no  point  of  similarity  in  this  letter,  except  in  the 
snapping'  entirely  of  the  historical  connexion  between  Judaic 
ritual  and  Christianity.  There  is  no  denial  of  the  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament,  no  contempt  of  its  assertions,  and  no 
absurd  theory  with  regard  to  its  Gods  The  work  is  com- 
pletely Christian.  Dorner  maintains  that  its  doctrine  stands 
nearer  to  the  type  of  Peter  than  to  those  of  Paul  and 
John.  "With  the  fundamental  thoughts  of  Peter  he  com- 
bats Judaism  within  Christianity*^." 

The  epistle  of  Barnabas  was  written  in  Greek.  The  first  four 
chapters  and  part  of  the  fifth,  however,  came  down  to  us  in 
a  Latin  translation  only,  until  the  Greek  of  Tischendorf  was 
found.  This  Latin  translation  does  not  contain  the  second  i)art. 
There  is  one  interpolation  in  some  of  the  MSS.,  inserted  before 
chapter  xii.,  but  it  is  so  notoriously  out  of  place  that  no 
critic  has  ever  regarded  it  as  possibly  a  part  of  the  letter. 
The  Greek  of  the  epistle  is  studded  with  Hebraisms,  such  as 
TTposbiTTov  Xafx^oLveiv ,  TtepLTTaTeLv  used  to  designate  a  mode  of 
life,  KoWaadai.  /xera  tmv  <{)0^ovix€vo)v,  &c.  The  language  is 
stiff",  awkward,  and  occasionally  ungrammatical.  Participles 
are  sometimes  used  where  we  should  expect  finite  verbs.  The 
author  seems  to  write  with  difficulty ;  he  struggles  to  express 
his  thoughts,  and  succeeds  but  imperfectly.  He  is  awkward 
in  connecting  his  sentences,  and  travels  backwards  and 
forwards  in  laying  before  his  readers  any  train  of  thought. 
We  should  be  inclined  to  regard  the  work  as  the  production 
of  a  man  who  was  not  cultivated,  and  who  had  derived  most 
of  his  information  and  thoughts  from  the  exhortations  and 
conversations  of  his  Christian  brethren  and  from  the  reading 
of  the  Septuagint. 

II.    ABSTRACT. 

The  letter  begins,  "  Hail,  sons  and  daughters,  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  loved  us,  in  peace."     He 

•^  Entvvicklungs-geschichte,  p.  i68,  note. 


224  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

expresses  the  delight  he  feels  in  their  spiritual  prosperity, 
and  congratulates  himself  on  the  success  that  had  attended 
his  addresses  to  them,  especially  in  regard  to  his  own  soul. 
He  assures  them  that  he  loves  them  beyond  his  own  life,  and 
now  he  hastens  to  write  to  them,  that  along  with  their  faith 
they  might  have  their  knowledge  (yrcSfTts)  complete.  There 
were  three  stages  in  the  evolution  of  life,  the  hope  of  it,  the 
beginning  of  it,  and  the  completion  of  it*'.  The  Lord  through 
the  prophets  had  made  known  the  past,  in  which  was  the 
hope  of  life  ;  now  they  had  the  beginning  of  the  life  itself, 
and  he  hoped  in  his  letter  to  show  them  a  few  things  which 
w^ould  increase  their  happiness,  not  as  a  teacher  but  as  one  of 
them,  (non  tanquam  doctor  sed  unus  ex  vobis).  II.  Since 
the  days  then  are  evil,  and  the  devil  has  ])ower  over  this  age, 
they  ought  to  give  particular  heed  to  the  laws  or  kind  pur- 
poses of  God,  having  the  fear  of  God  and  patience  to  aid 
their  faith;  and  with  these  and  other  virtues  must  be  con- 
joined wisdom,  understanding,  science  (eTrtar?;)^??),  and  know- 
ledge {yv5i<ns) .  God^  then  teaches  us  through  the  prophets 
that  He  does  not  care  for  sacrifices  and  suchlike  services. 
In  proof  of  this  he  appeals  to  Isaiah  i.  11-14,  ^^^  "^^r.  vii.. 
22,  23,  and  remarks  that  these  rites  are  condemned  in  order 
to  open  up  a  way  for  the  new  law  of  Christ,  which  has  a 
human  offering^,  (that  is,  requires  a  man  to  sacrifice  himself 
spiritually).  These  passages  also  teach  us,  who  are  inclined 
to  err  like  the  Jews,  how  we  ought  to  come  to  God ;  and  we 
must  take  care  that  the  devil  do  not  turn  us  away  from  our 
salvation.  III.  The  writer  continues  the  subject,  and  appeals 
to  Isaiah  Iviii.  4,  5,  in  which  God  speaks  to  the  Jews,  and 
shows  how  their  fasts  \vere  vain.  In  verses  6-10  He  addresses 
us,  telling  us  in  what  a  proper  fast  consisted.     In  thus  in- 

<i  The  Greek  ofTischendorf  differs  much  from  this,  but  is  not  so  good. 

"^  The  connexion  here  appears  to  be ;  Let  us  apply  our  yvSiais.  Tlie  Jews 
seem  to  be  commanded  to  offer  up  sacrifices  once  and  again,  but  if  we  look  at 
the  Old  Testament  with  true  insight,  we  shall  find  that  these  commands  were 
mere  types  of  a  worship,  which  even  through  the  prophets  he  has  more  fully 
explained,  as  in  the  passages  which  he  quotes. 

f  "Which  is  not  to  have  a  man-made  oft'erino;." — Tischcndorf. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  225 

structing  us  God  was  provident  and  merciful,  showing-  be- 
forehand how  we  ought  not,  "  like  proselytes,  rush  into  the 
law  of  the  Jews/^  IV.  We  ought  therefore  to  examine  into 
suchlike  matters  :  for  these  are  the  things  that  can  cure  us. 
We  ought  to  flee  from  all  iniquity  and  hate  the  error  of 
this  time  g.  For  the  time  of  trial  foretold  by  Daniel  was  at 
hand,  when  the  predictions  in  Daniel  vii.  7,  8,  24  would  be 
fulfilled.  We  ought  to  understand  these  things,  and  take  no 
part  with  those  who  heap  up  sins  and  say  that  the  Testament 
was  equally  theirs  (the  Jews'*)  and  ours*^.  It  was  only  ours. 
For  the  Jews  had  lost  their  testament,  because  Moses  on 
account  of  their  idolatry  broke  the  tablets,  intimating  thereby 
that  we  should  be  privileged  to  have  our  hope  in  faith  in 
Christ.  Wherefore  we  should  hate  iniquity.  We  should  not 
give  up  meeting  togethei',  as  if  we  were  already  perfectly 
righteous  (tanquam  justificati),  but  we  should  all  meet  to 
consult  for  the  common  good.  We  shall  all  be  judged  ac- 
cording to  our  deeds,  and  therefore  we  should  take  care  that 
the  wicked  one  do  not  exclude  us  from  the  kingdom  of  the 
Lord.  What  a  terrible  fate  awaits  us,  if  we  are  so  beguiled, 
is  plainly  shown  us  in  the  calamities  that  have  come  upon 
the  Jewish  people. 

V.  The  writer  now  draws  special  attention  to  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ.  The  object  of  the  Lord^s  suffering,  he  says,  is 
that  we  might  be  sanctified.  And  in  proof  of  this  he  quotes 
Isaiah  liii.  5,  7,  remarking  that  certain  things  were  said  to 
the  Jews  regarding  Him,  and  certain  things  "  to  us.^^  We 
ought  to  be  thankful  to  God  for  showing  us  the  past  and 
future,  but  at  the  same  time  we  should  remember  Proverbs  i. 
171,  and  keep  out  of  the  way  of  darkness.  The  reason  of  the 
Lord's  suffering  indignities  from  men  is  partly  found  in  the 

B  The  error  of  this  time,  as  Hefele  remarks,  is  principally  Judaism,  but 
includes  also  the  prevailing  vices  and  heresies  of  the  age. 

*•  Some  read,  "was  theirs  and  not  ours,"  see  Dressel.  Reithmayr  says 
that  non  is  in  the  Corbey  MS.  Tischendorf's  Greek  has  simply,  "the  covenant 
ia  ours  indeed." 

'  Hefele  takes  these  words  to  refer  to  the  Jews  ;  Hilgenfeld  shows  tliat 
they  refer  to  the  Christians,  Apost.  Vater,  p.  16,  note. 
VOL,  I.  Q 


2-20  Tin-:   APOSTOLJCAl    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

circumstance  thut  the  j)roj)hets  who  were  the  servants  of 
Christ  so  prophesied  of  Him.  He  came  to  redeem  his  promise 
to  them,  and  to  show  by  his  life  here  that  He  would  rise  a^ain 
and  judo-e  the  world.  If  He  had  not  come  in  the  flesh,  then 
man  could  not  have  looked  on  his  transcendent  glory  and  lived. 
Another  purpose  his  coming  served  was  to  consummate  the 
sins  of  the  Jews,  just  as  it  was  prophesied,  "  When  I  shall 
smite  the  shepherd,  the  sheep  of  the  flock  shall  be  scattered .'' 
And  He  suffered  on  the  cross  according-  to  prophecy  :  Ps.  cxviii. 
[cxix.]  1 20.  VI.  "When  Christ  did  what  He  was  ordered,  what 
says  He?'''  To  this  question  an  answer  is  given  in  Isaiah  1. 
8,  9,  and  viii.  i^.  When  a  stone  is  tlicre  spoken  of,  it  is 
])lain  that  we  are  not  ordered  to  place  our  confidence  in  a  mere 
stone.  But  it  is  so  said  because  "the  Lord  placed  his  flesh  in 
strength  ^."  The  sufferings  of  Christ  were  foretold  in  Psalms 
xxi.  [xxii.]  i7,cxvii.  [cxviii.]  12,22.  Moses  also  says  to  them, 
"  Behold,  the  Lord  God  says  those  things  :  Enter  ye  into  the 
good  land  which  the  Lord  sware  to  give  to  Abraham  aiid  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  and  inherit  it,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey." 
Now  the  true  meaning*  of  this  is  given  by  yrdJo-t?.  In  sub- 
stance it  is,  "  Put  your  hope  in  Jesus  who  is  about  to  be 
manifested  in  the  flesh/'  The  more  copious  explanation  of  it 
is  :  Man  is  simply  earth  fashioned  under  a  plastic  hand,  for 
Adam  was  made  from  earth.  Now  the  Lord  has  made  us 
after  a  new  model,  when  He  re-formed  us  so  that  we  should 
have  the  souls  of  children.  This  re-fashioning  is  what  is 
meant  when  God  spoke  to  his  son  about  us  (not  about  the 
human  race  in  general),  "Let  us  make  man  in  our  image 
and  likeness,  and  let  them  rule  over  the  beasts  of  the  earth," 
&c.  This  really  then  is  our  entering  into  a  good  land,  that 
is,  into  a  new  state  or  formation.  The  prophet  describes  this 
new  creation  when  he  says,  "I  will  take  away  the  stony  hearts 

^  The  exact  meaning  of  these  words  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  word 
'  strength'  is  an  explanation  of  'stone.'  Hefele  gives  two  meanings.  Strength 
is  mentioned  because  Sion  was  to  he  built  on  his  flesh,  or  the  word  strength 
refers  to  the  firmness  with  which  He  endured  suffering.  Hilgenfcld  supposes 
it  to  mean  the  powerful  working  of  his  earthly  appearance.  Perhaps  it  is 
meant  to  show  the  strong  reality  of  Christ's  .ippearauce  and  suffering. 


IV.]  BAI^XABA^.  227 

and  give  them  hearts  of  flesh."  This  refers  to  Christ,  who  was 
to  appear  in  the  ilesh  and  to  dwell  in  us  so  as  to  re-form  us. 
And  the  prophet  alludes  in  other  places  to  the  Lord's  dwelling 
in  our  hearts,  as  in  Ps.  xli.  3.  It  is  to  us  then  that  Moses 
really  referred  when  he  said,  "  Enter  into  the  good  land,"  for 
we  are  the  persons  whom  the  Lord  has  led  into  it.  But  what 
is  the  meaning-  of  the  milk  and  the  honey  ?  Honey  means  faith 
in  the  Lord^s  promise,  and  milk  his  word,  and  as  children  are 
fed  by  honey  and  milk,  so  ai-e  we  by  faith  and  his  word.  The 
promise  that  we  "  shall  increase  and  rule  the  fishes  "  has  not 
been  fulfilled  yet,  but  will  be  fulfilled  when  we  have  become 
perfect  so  as  to  be  heirs  of  the  Lord's  covenant'.  VII.  All 
things  therefore  have  been  made  plain  to  us  already  in  the 
prophets  by  the  good  Lord.  Even  with  regard  to  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  his  suflering  we  have  distinct  notices. 
Thus,  his  di'inking  gall  and  vinegar  was  foreshadowed 
in  the  drinking  of  vinegar  and  gall  on  the  Jewish  fasts — 
and  there  is  a  minute  type  of  his  sufferings  in  the  suflPerings 
to  which  the  goat  sent  forth  into  the  wilderness  was  exposed. 
VIII.  We  have  another  type  of  Christ  in  the  red  heifer 
mentioned  in  Num.  xix.  2.  The  explanation  of  these  types  is 
plain  to  us.  They  are  obscure  to  the  Jews.  The  reason  is 
that  they  have  not  listened  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord.  IX. 
For  the  true  circumcision  is  a  circumcision  of  the  ears  and  the 
heart,  Jer.  iv,  4.  The  Lord  has  declared  circumcision  not  to 
be  a  mere  effect  on  flesh,  but  the  Jews  have  missed  the  true 
meaning  of  circumcision  because  a  wicked  angel  cheated  them, 
(i(T6(})L(Tfv  avTovs^).  Jer,  vii.  26,  &c.  But  some  may  say  that 
circumcision  was  given  for  a  seal.  This  cannot  be  the  case, 
as  not  only  the  Jews,  but  Syrians,  Arabians,  all  priests  of  idols, 

'  Hefele  supposes  that  Barnabas  gives  three  Gnostic  interpretations  of  the 
passage  in  Moses.  He  makes  yi]  -ndirxova-a  mean,  i .  the  incarnation  of  Christ  ;  2. 
the  new  creation  in  Christians  ;  and  3.  the  Church.  The  first  depends  solely  on 
laying  an  undue  stress  on  yap,  and  for  the  third  there  is  no  authority,  as  Bar- 
nabas does  not  mention  the  Church.  Beside.*,  the  application  of  the  three 
meanings  destroys  the  connexion  of  the  passage,  and  Hefele  has  not  taken  into 
account  Bamabas's  lumbering  way  of  stating  his  opinions. 

™  Tisoliendorf  has  fffrpa^fv,  '  slew  tliern.' 

Q  2 


228  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

and  Egyptians  are  circumcised.  Besides,  even  if  you  look  at 
the  first  circumcision,  the  circumcision  in  Al)raham's  house, 
you  will  see  Jesus  in  it.  There  were  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  men  circumcised.  Now  ten  in  Greek  is  represented 
by  the  letter  I,  and  eight  by  the  letter  H.  These  are  the 
two  first  letters  of  the  name  Jesus  f  Itjo-oCs).  And  the  letter 
for  three  hundred  is  T,  which  plainly  is  the  shape  of  a  cross 
and  foreshadowed  it  here".  X.  The  writer  applies  his  gnosis 
to  the  directions  of  ^Nloses  in  regard  to  food,  showing  that 
they  really  contained  hoyiiara",  or  principles,  which  at  first 
sight  are  not  apparent  but  are  really  concealed  within  them. 
Moses  did  not  mean  to  prohibit  our  actual  eating  of  the 
animals.  He  spoke  in  spirit.  "  Eat  not  swine  "  means  con- 
sort not  with  men  who,  like  swine,  forget  their  master  when 
their  belly  is  full,  and  remember  him  only  when  it  is  empty. 
In  like  manner  the  prohibition  to  eat  other  animals  is  to  be 
explained,  the  character  of  the  animals  indicating  the  cha- 
racter of  the  men  to  be  avoided.  And  so  when  Moses  says, 
"  Eat  those  that  have  two  claws  and  who  ruminate,'^  he 
means,  "  Be  joined  to  those  who  fear  the  Lord  and  ruminate 
on  his  word.^^  And  by  double-clawed,  Moses  means  the  right- 
eous man,  who  lives  in  this  world  but  looks  for  the  holy 
age  to  come.  These  were  the  real  laws  of  Moses,  though 
the  Jews  did  not  understand  him.  XI.  Let  us  examine 
whether  the  Lord  has  not  said  something  a])out  the  water  and 
the  cross.  Now  we  find  Israel  blamed  for  not  accepting  the 
true  baptism  and  building  up  other  and  false  baptisms  for 
themselves,  Jer.  ii.  12,  13,  and  Christ  is  mentioned  as  a  living 
fountain,  Isaiah  xvi.  i,  2 ;  xlv.  2,  3  ;  xxxiii.  16.  And  we  have 
in  another  prophet  (Psalm  i.)  the  combination  of  water  and 
wood  :  "  The  man  who  does  these  things  shall  be  as  the  wood 
planted  by  the  outgoings  of  the  waters,'^  &c.  The  cross  is 
meant  here,  and  the  true  intent  of  the  passage  is,  "  Blessed  are 

"  "We  omit  here  notice  of  the  mistakes  in  tlie  quotation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  of  the  additions  to  it,  that  occur  in  these  Gnostic  interpretations,  as  we 
have  noticed  them  elsewhere. 

o  On  the  peculiar  use  of  S6yfia  here  see  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vater,  p.  1 3,  note  2 1 . 


IV.]  BAnXABAS.  229 

those  who,  phicing  their  hope  upon  tlie  cross,  went  down  into 
the  water/'  And  again,  Christ's  body  p  is  meant  by  the  good 
land  in  Zeph.  iii.  19,  and  the  meaning  of  Ezek.  xlvii,  t2  is, 
"  Whoever  listens  to  Christ  shall  be  saved  for  ever."  XII. 
In  like  manner  the  Lord  speaks  about  the  cross  in  another 
prophet,  saying,  "  And  when  shall  these  things  be  ended  ?" 
And  the  Lord  says,  "  When  wood  shall  be  bent  and  arise, 
and  when  blood  shall  drip  from  wood  "i."  Again,  we  have 
a  type  of  the  cross  in  the  stretching  out  by  Moses  of  his  hand 
in  order  that  the  Israelites  might  prevail  over  the  Amalekites, 
And  in  another  prophet,  Isaiah  Ixv.  2,  he  speaks  of  stretching 
out  his  hands.  In  another  place  Moses  gives  a  type  of  Christ 
when  he  erected  the  brazen  serpent.  Jesus  the  son  of  Nave 
(Joshua)  was  also  a  type  of  Christ.  Some  wicked  people  say 
that  Christ  is  the  son  of  David,  but  David  himself  called  him 
Lord  (Ps.  ex.  I),  and  so  did  Isaiah  (xlv.  i). 

XIII.  Let  us  now  inquire  whether  the  Jews  or  Christians 
are  the  true  heirs  of  the  covenant.  The  histor}^  of  the  patri- 
archs gives  us  insight  into  this  matter.  The  Lord  told  Re- 
becca that  she  had  two  nations  in  her  womb,  and  that  the 
elder  should  serve  the  younger.  Gen.  xxv.  23.  Then,  again^ 
Jacob  declared  this  still  more  plainly  to  Joseph  when  he  gave 
the  greater  blessing  to  the  younger  in  preference  to  the  elder. 
Gen.  xlviii.  11.  And  we  have  perfect  security  in  our  Gnostic 
interpretation  when  we  consider  what  God  said  to  Abraham : 
"  That  thou  hast  believed,  has  been  set  down  to  thee  as  right- 
eousness :  lo  !  I  have  made  thee  the  father  of  nations  that  in 
uncircumcision  trust  on  the  Lord ""."  Gen.  xv.  6,  &c.  For  the 
Christians  therefore  the  covenant  was  designed.  XIV.  Then 
it  is  a  question — Did  God  ever  give  the  covenant  to  the  Jews 
which  He  swore  to  the  fathers  He  would  give  ?  Yes,  He  gave 
it,  but  they  were  not  worthy  to  receive  it.    For  God  gave  two 

1*  This  interpretation  is  by  no  means  a  certain  one.  Christ's  name  is  not 
mentioned,  but  simply  t^  CKtvos  tov  iTvfv/xaTos  avrov.  See  Hefele  and  Hilgen- 
feld  on  the  passage. 

*«  From  an  apocryphal  book.     Comp.  4  Esdras  v.  5. 

■■  Hilgenfeld  regards  the  la.st  clause  as  an  expansion  by  Barnabas  of  the  idea 
contained  in  the  first. 


230  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

tables  of  stone  written  with  his  own  ting-er,  but  to  be  under- 
stood only  by  means  of  spiritual  enlightenment  ^.  And  Moses 
was  just  taking-  them  down  when  the  Lord  told  him  of  the 
idolatry  of  his  people.  Moses,  understanding  this,  east  away 
the  tables  and  they  were  broken.  Moses  therefore  did  receive 
the  covenant ;  but  the  people  were  not  worthy  to  keep  it. 
Then  we  received  it.  For  the  Lord  Himself  gave  it  to  us, 
having"  suffered  on  our  account.  He  was  manifested  that  He 
might  ransom  us  from  darkness  and  place  his  covenant  in  us 
by  his  word.  See  Isaiah  xlii.  6,  7  ;  xlix.-6;  Ixi.  1,2.  XV.  The 
Jews  also  do  not  celebrate  the  rig-ht  Sabbath.  With  regard  to 
it,  the  Scripture  says  (Exod.  xx.  8,  Deut.  v.  12),  "  Sanctify  the 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord  with  pure  hands  and  a  pure  heart.'^  This 
Sabbath  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  creation.  Gen. 
ii.  2.  But  the  meaning  of  the  whole  depends  on  the  meaning  of 
the  words  "  He  ended  on  the  seventh  day."  Now  a  day  with 
the  Lord  is  a  thousand  years.  The  Lord  therefore  will  end 
all  things  in  six  thousand  years.  Then  the  time  of  rest  will 
comCj  when  the  Son  of  God  shall  appear  and  destroy  the  time 
of  the  lawless  one  (the  deAal).  The  expression  "Sanctify 
the  Sabbath  with  pure  hands,"  &c.,  plainly  impUes  that  it  \\n\\ 
be  completely  sanctified  when  we  have  all  become  perfectly 
righteous,  that  is,  when  Christ  comes  back  to  reign.  And 
the  Lord  declares  his  rejection  of  the  Jewish  new-moons  and 
sabbaths.  The  true  Sabbath  therefore  is  the  seventh  of  the 
thousand  years,  and  as  this  commences  with  the  eighth  day, 
the  day  of  Christ^s  resurrection  and  ascension,  we  celebrate  it 
in  gladness.  XVI.  The  Jews  made  an  equally  gross  mistake 
in  regard  to  the  temple.  They  placed  their  hopes  not  on  God 
Himself  but  on  the  temple,  as  if  it  had  been  God's  house. 
But  the  Lord  Himself  shows  the  folly  of  trusting  in  a  building ; 
see  Isaiah  xl.  12;  Ixvi.  i.     The  hope  of  the  Jews  is  utterly 

*  «ai  €Aay8f  iraph.  kvo'iov  rar  5t^i)  irAaKaK  yfypajxuffas  tu'  SaKTv\(f>  tjjj  x*'P^J 
Kvpiov  (I'  TTvivfjiaTi.  I  have  adopted  Hefele's  mode  of  understanding  the  pas- 
sage. Hilgenfehl  connects  the  words  witli  Moses'  reception  of  the  tables — 
that  he  received  them  in  an  inspired  state.  The  context  and  the  [icculiar  order 
of  the  words  are  both  against  Hilgenfeld. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  2^1 

vain.  For  in  Isaiah  xlix.  17  it  is  said,  "  Lo  !  those  who  have 
taken  down  the  temple  shall  themselves  build  it.""^  This  is 
now  taking'  place  spiritually.  But  the  Lord  has  revealed  how 
the  temple  and  the  city  and  the  people  of  Israel  were  to  be  de- 
livered, for  the  writer  says,  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the 
last  days  that  the  Lord  will  deliver  up  the  sheep  of  his  pasture, 
and  the  sheep-stall  and  their  tower  for  destruction.^^  Is  there 
then  a  temple  of  God  now  existing-?  There  is.  Our  hearts  are 
God^s  temple.  The  word  of  God^s  faith,  the  calling  of  his 
promise,  the  wisdom  of  his  decrees,  the  commandments  of  his 
teaching  are  in  us.  He  is  Himself  prophesying  in  us,  dwelling 
in  us.  AVe  have  become  new  creatures,  a  spiritual  shrine  to 
the  Lord.  XVII.  Barnabas  hopes  he  has  explained  every 
question  of  the  present  time  that  relates  to  salvation.  He  does 
not  intend  to  speak  of  things  to  come,  as  they  lie  in  darkness. 

Pabt  II. 

XVIII.  Let  us  now  go  to  another  kind  of  knowledge 
[yv&aiv)  and  teaching.  There  are  two  ways  of  teaching. 
Over  one  of  these,  the  way  of  light,  angels  of  God  are  ap- 
pointed. Over  the  other,  which  is  the  way  of  darkness,  angels 
of  Satan  pi-eside.  XIX.  Barnabas  describes  the  way  of  light. 
You  must  love  God,  be  simple  in  heart  and  rich  in  spirit,  do 
what  is  pleasing  to  God,  be  humble,  be  pure,  love  your  neigh- 
bour, be  liberal,  and  make  no  schism.  XX.  The  way  of  dark- 
ness is  crooked  and  full  of  curses.  In  it  are  those  things  that 
destroy  the  soul,  idolatry,  pride  in  power,  hypocrisy,  double- 
heartedness,  pride,  and  want  of  the  fear  of  God.  Those  in  it 
do  not  associate  vvdth  the  good,  but  persecute  them.  They 
have  no  pity  on  the  needy.  They  afflict  the  afflicted,  defend 
the  rich,  and  judge  the  poor  contrary  to  law.  XXI.  It  is 
good  to  walk  in  the  commandments  which  have  been  men- 
tioned. For  those  who  do  them  shall  be  glorified  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  but  those  who  choose  the  other  way  shall 
perish  with  their  works.  Men  who  are  exalted  in  this  life 
should    never  lose  sight  of  those    to  whom   they   have   once 


232  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

done  a  good  turn.  For  the  Lord  and  his  reward  are  near. 
And  may  God  who  is  Lord  of"  all  the  world  grant  you  wisdom, 
discernment,  intelligence,  and  knowledge  of  his  command- 
ments. Remember  me  also.  Be  ye  saved,  children  of  love 
and  peace.  The  Lord  of  glory  and  of  all  grace  be  with  your 
spirit.     Amen. 

III.    THE    DOCTRINES    OF    BARNABAS. 

God. — Barnabas  is  entirely  free  from  speculations  on  the  nature 
and  character  of  God.  He  knows  Him  always  as  the  source 
of  spiritual  life  and  of  holiness,  and  when  he  refers  to  his 
natural  attributes,  it  is  to  deepen  the  impression  of  his  moral. 
He  speaks  of  God  as  having  created  men  *,  and  as  being  Lord 
for  ever  and  ever  ".  It  is  obedience  to  God^s  commandments 
that  constitutes  morality,  and  so  he  speaks  of  the  equity  and 
equities  (SiKatwjoiaTa)  of  God''.  Whether  God  created  morality  or 
was  Himself  eternally  moral,  the  waiter  does  not  trouble  him- 
self with  determining,  but  of  this  he  is  always  sure,  that'  we  are 
bound  to  do  what  is  pleasing  in  God's  sight  y.  We  are  "  to 
practise  the  fear  of  the  Lord  and  to  keep  his  commandments  ^." 
We  are  to  "  love  Him  that  made  us,''  and  not  take  his  name  in 
vain  3.  We  are  to  trust  Him  and  hope  in  Him  ^.  The  power  to 
do  this  comes  from  God  Himself.  It  is  his  spirit  infused  into 
man  that  can  make  him  truly  righteous,  and  Christians  are 
urged  to  become  taught  of  God  {OiohihaKToC)  •=.  In  fact,  con- 
version is  just  putting  confidence  in  God,  and  then  God 
dwells  in  the  heart  of  his  people,  after  He  has  changed  their 
minds  <*.  God  is  thus  at  once  the  author  of  conversion  and 
the  new  aim  introduced  into  the  converted  man's  life.  He  is 
also  the  governor  of  the  world,  especially  showing  Himself 
kind  to  Christians  in  the  spiritual  revelation  He  made  through 
the  prophets  e.  He  is  also  judge  of  the  world  ^,  rewards  the 
liberal  S,  will  not  regard  the  person  of  any,  and  ought  to  be 
feared  as  having  power  over  all''. 

'  cc.  1 6,  20.  "  c.  i8.  "  cc.  I,  2.  >   c.  19.  '  C.  4. 

"  c.  \g.  ^  c.  16.  "■  c.  2  1.  ^  <•.  i6.  •■  cc.  3,4. 

'  c.  4.  g  c.  19.  ii  Ibid. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  233 

Christ. — The  writer  of  the  letter  speaks  of  Christ  frequently 
as  the  Son  of  God  '.  That  he  meant  by  the  term '  Son  of  God' 
more  than  what  could  be  properly  affirmed  of  any  man,  is 
certain.  For  he  tells  us  that  "  He  is  Lord  of  the  world  ^,"  and 
that  the  sun  was  the  work  of  his  hands'.  He  calls  Him  Lord 
again  and  again,  and  declares  that  in  the  creation  God  spoke 
to  his  son  and  said,  "  Let  us  make  man  ^ ;"  and  that  He  v\nll 
come  to  judge  the  world",  or,  as  in  another  passage.  He  will 
destroy  the  time  of  the  lawless  and  judge  the  ungodly.  He 
is  said  to  have  manifested  Himself  the  Son  of  God  in  that  He 
came  not  to  call  the  righteous  but  sinners  to  a  change  of 
mind  i'.  In  these  statements  we  have  proof  that  the  writer 
believed  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  in  his  peculiar  charac- 
ter as  Son,  and  in  his  future  glory.  We  have  also  the  state- 
ment that  "  all  things  are  in  Christ  and  for  Him^."  But 
though  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  wa-iter,  like  Paul,  would 
have  applied  these  words  absolutely  to  Christ,  yet  in  the 
connexion  in  which  they  occur  they  have  a  narrower  force, 
and  mean  that  all  the  Jewish  prophecies  and  rites  found 
their  fulfilment  and  solution  in  Christ,  and  were  meant  to 
turn  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  to  Him.  There  is  one  passage 
also  in  which  probably  reference  is  made  to  the  worship 
of  Chi-ist :  "  Thou  shalt  love  Him  who  made  thee,  thou 
shalt  glorify  Him  who  ransomed  thee  from  death.'''  The  latter 
clause,  in  which  alone  reference  to  Christ  may  be  supposed 
to  be  made,  can  also  refer  to  God,  especially  as  God  is  said 
elsewhere  to  ransom  from  death.  We  have  no  express  declara- 
tion of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  In  the  chapter,  however,  which 
we  have  suspected  as  interpolated,  there  is  one  sentence  which 
bears  on  the  point :  "  Thou  shalt  not  command  thy  female 
slave  or  thy  male  slave  in  bitterness,  who  hope  in  the  same 
[God] ,  lest  perchance  thou  fear  not  God  who  is  over  both  :  for 
He  came  not  to  call  according  to  person,  but  those  whom  the 
Spirit  has  prepared '.•"  The  grammatical  construction  here 
represents  God  as  coming  to  call.     That  this  may  be  said  in 

i  cc.  5,  6,  7,  12,  IK.  ■<  c.  5.  '  Ibid.  ■"  Ibid.  "  c.  7. 

"  c.  15.  P  c.  5.  1  c.  12.  '  c.  19. 


234  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATIIERH.         [Chap. 

a  figurative  way  is  possible,  but  by   far  tlie  most  likely  in- 
terpretation would  refer  it  to  Christ's  coming.     If  it  refers  to 
Christ's  coming,  then  Christ's  coming  must  be  taken  to  be 
equivalent  to    God's    coming.     This    renders    it    likely    that 
Christ  and  God  are  the  same,  but  it  does  not  render  it  abso- 
lutely necessary ;    for   it  is  merely  actions  that  are  said   to 
be   equivalent.      The    writer    may    have    regarded    Christ's 
coming    as    really    the  coming   of  God,  simply  because   He 
broiisrht    God's   messag-e  and    came    God-commissioned    and 
God-possessed,  just  as  in  Titus  the  appearance  of  God  is  iden- 
tified with  the  appearance  of  Christ ;  and  comp.  also  Matt.  xxiv. 
We  cannot  therefore  from  this  passage  affirm  that  the  writer 
would  have  spoken  of  Christ  as  God,  or  as  equal  to  God. 
Besides  this,  it  is  possible  that  the  writer  may  have  been 
careless   in  his  expression,  leaving  his  readers  to    infer  the 
subject  from  the  nature  of  the  verbal  action.     Such  a  slip  is 
not  usual  in  the  writings  of  Barnabas,  but  it  does  occurs. 
Alongside  with  these  statements   of  Christ's   high    position 
occur   also    statements    implying    his    dependence    on    God. 
His  coming  into  the  world  and  his  suffering  were  done  in 
conseqiaence  of  the  commandment  of  God,  and  God  is  said 
to  prepare   a  people  for  Him  and  to  have  ransomed  Him*. 
Whether  this  last  expression  may  not  be  a  slip,  or  whether  it 
refers  to  God's  rescuing  Him  from  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
raising  Him  from  the  dead,  and  giving  Him  a  place  above  every 
name  in  heaven,  it  is  difficult  to  say".     The  ^Titer  speaks 
most  positively  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.     He  affirms 
that  He  really  did  manifest  Himself  in  flesh.     He  again  and 
again  repeats  the  affirmation,  and  declares  that  that  appear- 
ance was  rendered  necessary  by  the  work  which  He  wished 
to  perform,  as  how  could  men  look  on  Him  if  He  had  ap- 
peared in  all  his  glor}^,  when  they  could  not  gaze  upon  the 
sun  the  work  of  his  hand  v.      Of  his  life,  however,  he  tells 
us    nothing  except  that  He  selected   Apostles*,  but  of  his 
death  he  makes  frequent  mention.     He  affirms  the  historical 

»  In  ch.  xvi.  avTuiv  is  used  indefinitely.  *  c.  14. 

"  Hefele  understands  it  of  his  being  saved  from  death.  '  c-  ?•        "  l'-»id- 


IV.]  BARXAHAS.  23r) 

fact  that  "Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  and  after  having 
manifested  Himself  He  went  up  into  the  heavens  Y."  We  hear 
nothing  of  Christ's  life  as  an  example,  and,  in  fact,  he  does 
not  give  us  any  description  of  his  character.  The  writer's 
subject  did  not  permit  him  to  treat  this  matter.  Of  the 
purpose  of  his  death,  on  the  other  hand,  he  speaks  most 
explicitly.  We  should  rather  say  of  the  purposes,  for  he 
mentions  several.  Christ  died  on  account  of  our  sins^.  He 
died  that  we  might  be  healed,  "  that  his  wound  might  give  us 
lifea,''  that  "  we  might  be  sanctified  b,^'  "that  He  might  make 
death  void*^,"  exhibit  the  truth  of  a  resurrection,  and  demon- 
strate that  He  would  yet  come  to  judge  the  world'i.  He  died 
also  to  fulfil  the  promise  He  had  given  to  the  fathers  in  the 
Old  Testament e,  and  "He  came  in  the  flesh  that  He  might 
complete  the  sins  of  those  who  had  persecuted  the  prophets','' 
take  away  from  them  the  covenant  entirely,  and  bestow  it  on 
the  new  people  whom  God  had  prepared  for  Him^.  Of  the 
mode  in  which  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  accomplish  all  these 
objects  the  writer  says  nothing.  He  asserts  that  we  are  sanc- 
tified by  the  remission  of  sins,  by  the  sprinkling  of  Christ's 
bloodh;  and  he  also  remarkgthat  on  account  of  our  sins  He 
Himself  was  to  present  the  vessel  of  his  spirit  as  a  sacrifice  i. 
We  have  therefore  a  direct  comparison  of  Christ's  death  with 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  and  the  Jewish  sacrifices ;  but  how  the 
writer  thought  a  sacrifice  operated  to  the  taking  away  of 
sins,  whether  it  was  to  have  this  effect  because  God  had  so 
arranged  it,  or  whether  he  regarded  a  sacrifice  as  a  satisfac- 
tion of  God's  justice,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  This  the 
letter  positively  asserts,  that  Christ  would  not  have  suffered 
had  He  not  suffered  on  our  account.  "  Let  us  believe  that  the 
Son  could  not  have  suffered,  except  on  our  account •*." 

Of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  the  writer  speaks  distinctly. 
He  will  come  to  destroy  the  time  of  the  lawless  and  to  judge 
the  ungodly';    and  it  is  affirmed  that  the  Lord  is  at  hand"!. 

r  c.  15. 


'c.  7. 

"  cc.  7,  12. 

''  c.  5. 

-^  Ibid. 

"  Ibid. 

'  Ibid. 

?  c.  14. 

"0.5. 

"  Ibid. 

'c.  15. 

"1  C.  21. 

236  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  [Chap. 

We  have  no  hint,  however,  whether  the  writer  expected  a 
personal  reign  of  Christ  on  earth;  and  though  he  speaks 
positively  of  a  millennium,  he  introduces  no  earthly  notions 
into  it,  but  regards  it  as  a  rest  which  only  the  holy  and  the 
righteous  will  enjoy  ^. 

The  Holy  Spirit. — There  is  no  express  declaration  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  writer  speaks  of  the  spirit 
infused  from  the  honourable  fountain  of  God°;  where  the 
expression  must  apply  not  to  a  person  but  to  a  thing.  Then 
he  urges  his  readers  to  be  rich  in  spirit?,  where  also  the  word 
has  an  impersonal  meaning.  The  word  '  spirit '  seems  to  be 
applied  to  the  higher  natui-e  of  man  in  the  expression  "  Hav- 
ing hope  in  Jesus  in  the  Spirit q.'^  The  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as 
preparing  men  for  holiness  ^,  and  as  speaking  into  the  heart  of 
Moses^;  in  both  of  which  cases  there  is  good  reason  to  infer 
the  writer's  belief  in  the  personal  existence  of  the  Spirit :  and 
we  must  also  say  the  same  of  an  expression  which  occurs 
twice,  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  foresaw,'-'  referring  to  the 
predictions  in  the  Old  Testament*. 

Angels. — All  that  the  writer  says  of  good  angels  is  that 
there  are  some  set  over  the  way  of  light  to  guide  men  to  the 
truth". 

Devil. — The  devil  and  his  angels  are  more  frequently  spoken 
of.  He  is  said  to  have  the  power  of  this  age  ^,  to  be  the  ruler 
of  the  season  of  iniquityy  ;  and  the  writer  is  anxious  that  his 
readers  should  be  on  their  guard  against  him,  lest  he  find 
entrance  into  their  hearts  2,  and  exclude  them  from  the  kinff- 
dom  of  the  Lord*.  The  coming  of  Antichrist  is  also  spoken 
of  as  having  been  foretold  by  Daniel''.  The  action  of  the  devil 
through  angels  is  also  referred  to.  He  has  angels  set  over  the 
way  of  darkness  to  lead  men  to  ruin^.  The  fatal  errors  of  the 
Jews  are  ascribed  to  the  misleading  and  bewitching  power  of 
an  evil  angel ^,  and  the  heart  of  man  before  his  conversion  is 

"  c.  15.  "CI.  TischendorTs  Greek  has,  "  poured  out  from  the  Lord  rich 

in  love."  P  c.  19.  1  c.  Ii.  '  c.  19.  •  c.  12. 

•  cc.  6,  9.  "  c.  18.  »  c.  2.  .'  c.  18.  I  c.  a. 

»  c.  4.  ^'  Ibid.  "■  c.  iS.  d  c.  9. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  237 

described  as  a  habitation  of  demons^.     It  is  said  also  that  all 
the  wicked  shall  be  destroyed  with  the  wicked  onef, 

Man. — No  deliverance  is  given  with  regard  either  to  the 
nature  or  origin  of  sin.  He  says  that  transgression  took 
place  in  Eve  through  the  serpent-.  This  statement  is  all  that 
is  given  with  regard  to  our  first  parents.  Nor  is  there  any 
statement  with  regard  to  the  general  depravity  of  tlie  race. 
But  the  ^NTiter  unequivocally  recognises  in  himself  and  his 
hearers  a  mighty  change  which  had  taken  place  in  them,  and 
which  we  now  call  conversion.  Before  this  change  he  de- 
scribes their  hearts  as  corrupt  and  weak,  because  they  were  in 
the  habit  of  doing  what  was  displeasing  to  God.  The  state 
of  mind  produced  by  the  change  is  summed  up  by  calling  it 
confidence  in  God.  The  effects  of  the  change  are  thus  de- 
scribed :  "  Having  received  remission  of  sins  and  having  put 
our  hope  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  we  became  new,  being 
fashioned  again  from  the  beginning.  Wherefore  in  us,  in 
our  habitation,  God  truly  dwells.  How?  The  word  of  his 
faith,  the  calling  of  his  promise,  the  wisdom  of  His  laws 
(SiKaicoju.diTtoi'),  the  commandments  of  his  teaching,  He  Himself 
prophesying  in  us,  He  Himself  dwelling  in  us,  opening  to  us 
enslaved  to  death  the  doors  of  the  shrine,  that  is,  the  mouth, 
giving  a  change  of  mind  to  us.  He  has  led  us  into  the  imperish- 
able shrine  ^."  A  man  who  undergoes  such  a  change  is  said  to 
be  saved,  to  be  made  alive,  while  in  his  previous  state  he  is 
described  as  being  enslaved  to  death.  It  is  sometimes  also 
represented  as  a  ransoming  from  darkness,  and  Christ  and  God 
are  both  said  to  effect  this  ransom.  "Moses,"  he  says  in  speak- 
ing of  the  covenant, "  being  a  servant  received  it,  but  the  Lord 
Himself  granted  unto  us  to  be  the  people  of  inheritance,  having 
suffered  on  our  account.  For  He  was  manifested  that  they 
(the  Jews)  might  be  perfected  in  their  sins,  but  that  we  in- 
heriting through  Him  might  receive  the  covenant  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  who  was  prepared  for  this,  that  He  Himself  appearing 
and  rescuing  from  darkness  our  hearts,  which  had  been  con- 

•  c.  i6.  f  c.  21.  Thia  may  mean,  'along  with  wickedness.' 

«  c.  11.  ^  c.  i6. 


238  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

snmed  by  death  and  delivered  over  to  the  lawlessness  of  error, 
might  place  his  covenant  in  us  by  his  word.  For  it  is  written 
how  the  Father,  rescuing  us  from  darkness,  commands  Him 
to  prepare  for  Himself  a  holy  people'."  It  is  well  to  observe 
that  this  change  is  always  looked  on  as  a  moral  change ;  that 
ulterior  consetjuences,  such  as  a  rescue  from  any  amount  of 
suffering,  are  never  thought  of,  nor  are  once  mentioned.  If 
we  wish  to  be  saved  or  cured,  our  way  is  to  flee  from  all 
iniquity,  and  to  have  no  similarity  to  the  wicked  '•.  The  Apo- 
stles "preached  the  good  tidings  of  the  remission  of  sins 
and  purification  of  heart '.^^  And  the  moral  I'csults  of  the 
change  are  still  more  largely  set  forth  in  the  description  of  the 
way  of  light.  (See  Abstract.)  At  the  bottom  of  all  this  change 
and  moral  purity  is  trust  in  Christ,  or,  as  the  writer  more 
frequently  puts  it,  hope  in  Christ.  He  is  the  head  corner- 
stone. It  is  He  that  rencMs  us  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  :  all 
things  are  made  new  by  Him.  It  is  He  that  has  introduced  the 
new  law  by  which  it  is  demanded  of  a  man  that  he  offer  him- 
self up  a  spiritual  sacrifice.  And  of  those  who  place  their 
hope  in  Him,  it  is  said  that  they  will  live  for  ever™.  The  only 
way  by  which  the  IsraeKtes  could  be  saved  was  by  trusting 
the  cross  of  Christ"  :  and  mention  is  elsewhere  made  of  put- 
ting one's  hope  in  the  cross^. 

The  writer  is  not  inconsistent  with  himself  and  this  doctrine 
of  trust  in  Christ  when  he  urges  his  readers  to  search  into 
the  will  of  the  Lord,  and  to  do  what  is  pleasing  to  Him,  that 
they  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  judgment?.  For  they  knew 
well  that  the  only  possible  way  at  once  to  learn  the  will  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  be  able  to  do  it,  was  by  means  of  this  triist, 
and  therefore  his  exhortation  simply  urges  them  to  put  their 
trust  in  God,  and  bases  the  exhortation  on  a  great  blessing 
that  will  be  vouchsafed  to  them  in  consequence.  The  matter 
is  entirely  different,  however,  with  the  other  passage  which 
we  have  abeady  quoted  and  discussed;  for  by  the  common 
interpretation,  work  is  not  merely  a  condition  of  forgiveness, 
but  a  something  that  deserves  and  produces  forgiveness.    We 

'  c.  14.  ^  c.  4.  '  c.  8.        '"  Ibid.         "c.  12.         °c.  11.         p  c.  11. 


IV.]  :.        BARNABAS.  -IWj 

ought  liere  to  remark  that  another  phase  of  the  way  of  sal- 
vation,  as  exhibited  in  this  letter,  has  yet  to  be  discussed 
when  we  notice  the  views  of  the  writer  on  baptism. 

Of  the  divine  life  in  Christians  not  much  is  said.  The 
readers  are  described  as  having-  an  al)undance  of  virtues  given 
them  by  God,  as  having  received  im])lanted  graced.  He 
urges  them  also  to  be  God-taught  •■.  There  is  one  passage 
on  this  part  of  om-  subject  which  deserves  attention,  in  regard 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  saints.  It  runs  as 
follows :  "  Give  heed  lest  at  any  time  reposing,  although 
already  called,  we  slumber  in  our  sins,  and  the  wicked  one 
receiving  power  over  us,  stir  us  up  and  exclude  us  from  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord^"  He  gives  also  but  few  hints  of  the 
outward  manifestations  of  this  divine  life.  We  gather  from 
him  that  some  Christians  were  in  the  habit  of  neglecting  the 
assembling  of  themselves  together,  as  if  they  thought  that 
they  required  no  spiritual  aid  from  their  fellows,  but  were 
already  made  righteous.  "VA'e  know  also  that  Christians  had 
to  undergo  trials,  for  he  says  that  the  purple  wool  is  the 
type  of  the  Church,  and  in  the  type  Christ  speaks  to  us 
thus,  "  Those  who  wish  to  see  me  and  touch  my  kingdom, 
must  aflBicted  and  suffering  receive  me'.^^  We  learn  also  that 
the  Christians  were  in  the  habit  of  celebrating  the  first  day 
of  the  week  as  a  day  of  gladness.  Of  the  mode  of  celebration 
no  hint  is  given.  Two  reasons  are  assigned  for  the  celebration 
of  that  day.  One,  dependent  on  a  mystical  intei*i)retation  of 
Gen.  ii.  2,  is  that  the  new  world,  after  the  six  thousand  years 
of  this  age  have  passed  away,  will  begin  with  the  first  da}'  of 
the  week.  The  other  was  the  more  rational  one  that  Christ 
rose  from  the  dead  on  that  day.  It  is  important  to  remark 
that  the  writer  does  not  refer  it  to  an}-  command;  but  re- 
gards it  simply  as  an  institution  (if  we  may  use  so  strong  a 
word)  established  by  custom  and  dependent  on  the  feeling 
of  Christians.  Barnabas  did  not  regard  it  as  a  substitute  for 
the  Jewish  Sabl>ath.  On  the  contrary,  he  believed  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Jewish   Sabbath   to  be  an   utter  mistake,  for 

'  c.  I.  ■•  c.  21.  '  c.  4.  '  c.  7. 


240  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

the  Sabbath  meant  was  a  period  of  one  thousand  years. 
And  he  evidently  opjioses  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  day, 
as  being  voluntary  and  joyfid,  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath". 

Baptism  also  seems  to  be  mentioned  by  the  writer — but 
only  seems,  for  he  refers  entirely  to  a  spiritual  baptism. 
He  speaks  of  the  water  and  the  cross  entirely  in  a  spiritual 
sense,  and  blames  the  Jews  for  not  having-  caught  their  spiri- 
tual meaning.  He  accordingly  finds  baptism  in  any  allusion 
to  water  in  the  Old  Testament.  Baptism  is  therelbre 
equivalent  with  him  to  conversion.  Explaining  a  passage 
in  the  Old  Testament-^,  he  says :  "  It  means  this :  We  go 
down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  filth,  and  come  up 
bearing  fear  as  fruit  in  our  hearts,  and  having  hope  in  Jesus 
in  the  Spirit X."  That  the  word  baptism  as  used  by  the 
'svriter  has  not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  Christian 
ceremony,  may  be  seen  at  a  glance  from  the  eleventh  chapter 
in  the  Abstract. 

Future  State. — The  writer  speaks  most  distinctly  of  a  future 
state.  We  have  already  mentioned  that  he  called  Christ  the 
judge,  and  that  he  speaks  of  his  coming.  "The  righteous 
man  waits  for  a  holy  age'^;"  "He  who  does  the  command- 
ments shall  be  glorilied  in  the  kingdom  of  God^.^'  He  will 
also  rise  again.  The  ^vicked,  on  the  other  hand,  "will  be 
destroyed  with  his  works ;"  "  The  day  is  at  hand  in  which  all 
things  will  be  destroyed  along  with  the  ^\-icked  one^.^'  It 
may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the  writer  means  by  this 
expression  that  the  wicked  will  cease  to  exist,  for  he  portrays 
the  way  of  darkness  as  "  the  way  of  eternal  [aloiviov]  death 
with  punishment^."  It  is  indeed  possible  that  eternal  death 
may  with  him  mean  eternal  destruction,  and  the  punishment 
consequently  would  have  reference  to  this  life  and  the  final 
punishment  of  destruction;  but  is  this  the  likely  meaning? 
It  deserves  notice  that  the  writer  sums  up  the  blessedness 
of  those  who  do  God's  will  in  the  one  word  "resurrection^;'' 
while  he  sums  up  what  awaits  the  disobedient  in  the  one  word 

»  See  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vat.,  p.  18,  note  36.  »  Ezek.  xlvii.  12. 

J  c.  1 1.  '  c.  10.  »  c.  21.  b  Ibid.  <^  c.  20.  <•  c.  21. 


IV.]  BAliyABA,S.  241 

"  retribution  "  (arraTro'Sotris) .  This  would  lead  us  to  infer  that 
the  writer  believed  the  wicked  would  not  be  raised  again, 
but  we  shoidd  be  very  rash  indeed  if  we  were  to  reo-ard  this 
as  by  any  means  an  inevitable  conclusion.  Indeed,  the 
writer's  views  on  the  particulars  of  this  doctrine  are  not 
distinctly  apprehensible  by  us;  for  he  looked  not  on  them 
as  dogmas  which  he  was  bound  to  explain  minutely,  but  as 
terrible  realities,  sufficiently  well  known  to  himself  and  readers 
for  all  practical  purposes.  Most  of  the  passages  which  have  been 
quoted  in  regard  to  a  future  state  have  been  taken  from  the 
second  part.  Those  in  the  first  part  relate  more  precisely  either 
to  the  establishment  of  the  future  and  holy  age  by  Christ,  or 
to  the  Judgment.  Those  relating  to  the  future  age  have  been 
noticed  alread}'.  In  regard  to  the  Judgment  it  is  said,  "  The 
Lord  judges  the  world  Avithout  respect  of  persons,  every  one 
shall  receive  according  to  what  he  does.  If  he  has  been  good, 
his  goodness  goes  before  him  ;  if  wicked,  the  reward  of 
iniquity  follows  him^^."  He  speaks  of  men  who  are  impious 
and  "  condemned  to  death  f,"  and  he  asserts  that  the  man 
shall  justly  perish  who  knows  the  way  of  truth  and  yet 
does  not  keep  from  the  w^ay  of  darkness?.  The  Judgment 
is  also  mentioned  in  the  second  part :  "  Remember  the  day 
of  judgment  day  and   night*!." 

The  Scriptures. — Barnabas  quotes  frequently  from  the  Old 
Testament,  but  seldom  mentions  the  name  of  the  writer,  and 
only  once  informs  us  of  the  exact  place  in  which  the  passage 
is  to  be  found.  The  books  from  which  he  quotes  arc  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  and  Daniel,  and  from 
the  apocr)q:»hal  books,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Sirach,  and 
Esdras'.  The  text  from  which  the  quotations  have  been 
made  is  identified  without  question  as  the  Septuagint.  The 
only  instance  in  which  the  writer  of  the  letter  adopts  a 
reading  different  from  that  of  the  Septuagint,  and  accordant 
with  the   Hebrew  text,  is   in  the  celebrated  passage,  "  God 

*  c.  4.  f  c.  10.  *  c.  5.  '■  c.  19. 

'  See  Hefele,  Sendschreiben,  pp.  21;  ff. 
V01-.  I.  n 


•24-2  77/ A'    APOSTOLrCAL     FATHERS.         [Chap. 

ended  on  the  seventh  day/'  where  the  Septuagint  reads  "  God 
ended  on  the  sixth  day."  This  does  not  at  all  prove  that  the 
writer  used  the  Hebrew,  for  such  a  remarkable  difference 
must  have  been  matter  of"  notoriety  to  tlie  Christian  Church, 
and,  consequently,  any  Christian,  however  unlearned,  would 
know  of  the  different  reading's,  and  would  feel  himself  at 
liberty  to  use  that  which  lie  thought  the  most  correct.  Some 
writers  have  appealed  to  two  other  passag-es  as  beingf  taken 
from  the  Hebrew,  but  certainly  without  good  reason.  In 
one — Isaiah  viii.  14 — the  Septuag'int  has  a  negative;  Barna- 
bas and  the  Hebrew  happen  to  agree  in  not  having  it.  In 
the  other  instance — Isaiah  xxviii.  1 6 — Barnabas  reads,  "  who 
hopes  on  Him  shall  live  for  ever ;"  the  Septuagint,  "  who 
hopes  on  Him  shall  not  be  piit  to  shame ;"  the  Hebrew,  "  who 
trusts  Him  will  not  make  haste,''  i.e.  need  to  flee.  Barnabas 
is  unlike  both  in  words,  but  his  meaning  really  agrees  with 
both.  From  the  New  Testament  there  is  but  one  express 
quotation.  It  is  of  a  passage  in  Matthew  xx.  16  and  xxii.  14, 
''  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  Besides  this,  how- 
ever, a  considerable  number  of  passages  have  been  adduced 
in  which  some  resemblance  is  traced  to  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  These  resemblances  do  not  argue  any  knowledge 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  are  sufficiently  well  accounted 
for  by  the  nature  of  the  subject  demanding  them,  and  by 
their  being  so  general  as  to  belong  to  no  Christian  writer 
exclusively.  The  only  instance  that  can  for  a  moment  detain 
the  reader's  attention  is  what  looks  like  a  quotation  from 
Revelation.  In  the  letter  of  Barnabas  occur  the  words, 
"The  Lord  is  near  and  his  reward;"  in  Revelation  xxii.  12, 
"  Lo,  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward  is  with  me."  We 
could  not,  however,  argue  from  this  that  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion was  known  to  the  writer'^.  Barnabas  quotes  a  saying  of 
Christ's  not  found  in  the  New  Testament,  "  As  the  Son  says, 
let  us  resist  all  iniquity  and  hate  it'."  This  quotation  dis- 
appears from  the  Greek  text  of  Tischendorf. 

^  See  Lardnpi-'s  CreHiMlitv.  part  ii.  c.  i. 
>  c.  4. 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  243 

The  writer  of  the  letter  unquestionably  regarded  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  we  have  mentioned  as  contain- 
ingc  the  sayings  of  God.  He  announces  no  theory  of  in- 
spiration. We  could  not  be  sure  that  he  would  have  affirmed 
that  everything  in  these  books  came  from  God,  nor  can  we 
expressly  affirm  what  the  writer  meant  by  God  speaking 
through  the  prophet,  whether  he  meant  that  every  word 
spoken  by  the  prophet  had  the  authority  of  God  for  its 
truth,  or  whether  the  prophet  was  urged  on  by  God  in  some 
mysterious  way  to  speak  out  what  was  in  him.  In  fact 
we  have  no  explanations.  But  this  only  is  plain,  that  he 
believed  God  did  speak  in  the  Old  Testament.  Thus  he  in- 
troduces a  quotation  from  Isaiah  by  "  God  says™.^^  In  other 
instances  the  quotation  is  introduced  by  "The  Scripture 
says",'^  or,  ''  It  has  been  written"."  Of  Moses  it  is  said  that 
''he  spoke  in  spiritP,"  and  that  the  Spirit  spoke  into  his 
heart  I ;  and  many  of  the  other  writers  are  called  prophets, 
Daniel  among  the  number"". 

The  most  prevalent  representation  of  the  origin  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  that  it  was  a  work  of  Christ's,  or,  as  He  is 
almost  invariably  called  in  this  connexion,  of  the  Lord's 
through  the  prophets.  Thus  a  passage  is  introduced  with 
the  phrase  "The  Lord  sa^'s  in  the  prophets"  There  are 
several  passages  in  which  the  Lord  is  represented  as  speaking 
or  making  things  known  through  the  prophets*,  and  it  is 
expressly  affirmed  that  the  prophets  derived  their  gift  of 
prophecy  from  Him,  and  accordingly  prophesied  of  Him".  So 
entirely  was  prophecy  the  work  of  Christ,  that  an  intimation 
in  the  Old  Testament  is  looked  upon  as  a  definite  promise  of 
Christ's,  and  one  reason  assigned  for  Christ's  coming  into 
the  world  was  that  He  might  fulfil  the  promises  He  had 
given  through  the  prophets. 

Along  with  this  sacred  regard  of  the  Old  Testament  we 

""  c.  5.  "  cc.  6,  13.  »  c.  16.  f  c.  10. 

'1    C.    12.  "■    C.   4.  ■    C.   9. 

'  cc.  I,  2,  3,  5.  These  pafisages  miglit  rpfpr  fiiniply  to  Cod,  Inif  tho  proba- 
bility is  that  Christ  is  meant.  "  c.  5. 

R   2 


244  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chaf. 

find  what  must  seem  to  our  times  a  most  jmzzling  phenome- 
non. It  is  this  :  The  writer  very  frequently  mis([uotes  and 
alters  the  Old  Testament^  jumbles  j^assages  together  most 
unwarrantably,  appeals  to  apocryphal  books  using  the  same 
introductory  formulas  as  he  uses  in  introducing  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  unfrequently  quotes 
as  Scripture  passages  that  cannot  now  be  recognised  as 
similar  to  any  in  our  Bibles,  We  shall  adduce  instances  of 
these  peculiarities.  Of  the  way  in  which  he  occasionally 
deals  with  the  Old  Testament  we  give  the  following  in- 
stances, all  selected  from  one  chapter  (xii.)  : — 

Barnabas.  i  Septuagint. 

Moses  said  to  tlieni,  When,  says  he,  Num.  xxi.  9.     And  Moses  made  a 

any  one    of  you  is   bitten,   let  him    ^  brazen  serpent,   and  set  it  up  on  a 

sign,  and  it  came  to  pass  when  the 
serpent  bit  a  man,  and  Ije  looked  upon 
the  brazen  serpent,  he  lived,. 


come  to  the  serpent  that  lies  upon  the 
wood,  and  let  him  hope  in  faith  that, 
though  dead,  it  can  make  alive,  and 
immediately  he  will  be  saved. 

And    laying  this    name    upon  him 


Exod.  xvii.  14.    And  the  Lord  said 


[viz.  Joshua]  when  he  sent  him  as  a  i  to  Moses,  Write  down  this  for  re- 
spy  of  the  land,  he  said,  Take  a  i  membrance  into  a  book  ;  and  give  it 
book  into  your  hands  and  write  what  \  to  the  ears  of  Joshua,  that  T  shall 
things  the  Lord  says,  because  the  son  '  utterly  wipe  the  remembrance  of 
of  God  at  the  last  days  will  cut  off  by  i  Araalek  from  beneath  the  sky. 
the  roots  all  the  house  of  Amalek.  ' 

And -again   thus  says  Isaiah,   The  i        Isa.  xlv.  i.   Thus  says  the  Lord  God 

Lord  said  to  my  Christ  the  Lord.  |  to  my  anointed  Cyrus. 


The  Septuagint  is  word  for  word  the  same  in  the  remain- 
ing portion  which  Barnalias  quotes  from  Isaiah,  but  different 
i'rom  our  English  translation. 

Now  in  the  first  passage  adduced  we  have  words  which  are 
not  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  which  are  simplj^  based 
on  them.  We  have  much  the  same  also  in  the  second.  It 
indeed  may  be  conceived  that  the  writer  did  not  regard  them 
as  quotations,  but  wishing  to  jiresent  the  narrative  in  a 
dramatic  way,  he  feigns  s^ieeches,  as  Livy  and  other  historians 
did  before  him.  But  such  a  supposition  has  not  much  like- 
lihood in  it.     In  the  third  passage,  ku/jiw  is  })ut   in  the  place 


IV.]  BAJ^^\iBAS.  -24.1 

of  Kv'po),  and  the  whole  application  of  the  words  is  thus  altered. 
The  passages  from  the  apocryphal  books  and  the  passages 
alleged  to  be  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  not  now  found  there, 
deserve  a  fuller  notice.     The  following  is  a  list  of  them  : — 

1.  "^In  like  manner  he  defines  with  regard  to  the  cross  in 
another  prophet  who  says,  '  And  when  shall  these  things  be 
concluded?^  And  the  Lord  says,  'When  wood  shall  be  bent 
and  rise  up  again,  and  when  blood  shall  drip  from  wood'^.^^' 
The  book  from  which  the  first  part  is  taken  is  unknown ; 
the  latter  part,  "blood  will  drip  from  wood,"  is  found  in 
4  Esdras  v.  5,  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  it  has  been 
taken  from  this. 

2.  "  For  the  writing  says, '  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the 
last  days  that  the  Lord  will  deliver  the  sheep  of  the  pasture 
and  their  stalls  and  tower  to  destruction  y.^"  Some  have  taken 
this  to  be  an  agglomeration  of  ideas  taken  from  Jeremiah  xxv. 
and  Isaiah  v. 

3.  "  Do  not  be  a  person  stretching  forth  thy  hands  to 
receive,  and  drawing  them  close  to  give  '•."  This  is  taken  from 
the  AVisdom  of  Sirach  iv.  31,  which  runs  thus,  "Let  not  thy 
hand  be  stretched  out  to  receive  and  contracted  in  giving." 

4.  "  Confess  your  sins  ^ ;  "  with  which  is  compared  Sirach 
iv.  26,  "  Be  not  ashamed  to  confess  your  sins.^^  There  is  a 
remarkable  similarity  of  Greek  expression,  in  both  the  phrase 
e^o/xoAoyetf  kirl  ay.apriai'i  occurring. 

The  two  last  quotations  seem  taken  from  the  book  of  Sirach, 
the  first  we  may  say  indubitably.  We  should  not  have 
quoted  them  however  as  relating  in  any  way  to  the  question 
of  inspiration,  had  they  not  been  already  quoted  in  this 
connexion  by  others.  For,  as  they  are  introduced  by  no 
formula  at  all,  the  writer  gives  no  hint  of  his  opinion  with 
regard  to  their  authority.  He  quotes  them  without  stating 
the  fact ;  but  a  simple  quotation  proves  nothing  at  all. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  these  la])ses  and  mistakes  ?  So 
much  as  this  we  may  safely  infer  from  them,  that  the  writer 
laid  no  stress  on  the  words  of  Scripture,  unless  when  his 
"  c.  12.  y  c.  16.  '■  c.  19.  "  Ibid. 


246  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  [Chap. 

gnostic  system  of  interpret ation  required  it,  and  then  he 
seems  to  have  regarded  himself  as  permitted  even  to  alter,  if 
he  only  brought  the  passage  to  speak  more  distinctly  tlie 
spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  the  prophets.  But  this  is  not 
enough,  and  we  must  suppose  that  he  frequently  quotes  from 
memory,  that  perhaps  he  knew  a  good  number  of  the  pas- 
sages not  from  personal  reading  but  from  having  heard  them 
in  the  Christian  meetings,  and  that  so  in  this  way  he  has 
sometimes  (at  least  in  two  instances)  confounded  the  words  of 
other  books  with  the  words  of  Scripture.  Such  a  confusion 
occurs  occasionally  in  the  writings  of  the  most  exact  of 
modern  men  with  all  their  appliances  of  books  and  references ; 
how  much  more  likely  in  the  case  of  these  old  Christians  who 
had  no  Concordances,  no  verses,  and  no  chapters,  and  many 
of  whom  were  probably  not  rich  enough  to  procure  a  complete 
copy  of  the  Old  Testament  for  themselves. 

The  letter  gives  no  information  with  regard  to  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament,  except  in  the  single  passage  to  which 
we  have  already  referred.  That  passage  is  introduced  with 
the  formula,  "As  it  has  been  written,"  and  hence  it  has  been 
inferred  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  ranked  with  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  authority.  The  words  "  It 
is  \vritten"  are  prefixed  only  to  quotations  from  canonical 
works,  and  consequently  in  this  new  application  of  it  we  must 
admit  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  the  sacred 
character  of  the  work  from  which  he  quotes.  The  argument 
is  good,  but  unfortunately  the  expression  on  which  it  is  based 
is  itself  open  to  suspicion.  For  this  would  be  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  the  phrase  would  be  used  to  introduce  a  say- 
ing of  Christ's  within  the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.  His  sayings  are  peculiarly  marked  out  as  his  own,  and 
referred  to  alwaj's  as  possessing  the  authority  of  Him  who 
was  Lord  of  the  Church.  This  objection  would  not  be  strong 
enough  of  itself  to  defy  all  counter-argument :  but  immense 
weight  isgiven  to  it  by  the  circumstance  that  it  occurs  in  the 
fourth  chapter,  which  is  contained  only  in  the  Latin  transla- 
tion.    Now  as  this  Latin  translation  is  inaccurate,  and  as  we 


IV.]  JiARNABAS.  247 

know  that  the  transhitov  has  taken  uncommon  liberties  with 
those  parts  which  have  also  come  down  in  Greek,  we  can 
have  no  hesitation  in  regarding-  the  words  "sicut  scriptum  est^' 
either  as  an  illegitimate  paraphase  of  the  Greek,  or  as  an 
interpolation  b. 

The  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  next  deserves  our 
attention.  The  letter  seems  to  have  been  mainly  written  to 
cast  light  on  this  subject.  The  difficulty  that  presented  itself 
was  this — Here  are  God^s  words,  how  are  we  Christians  to 
understand  them  ?  The  solution  was  at  once  demanded  and 
furthered  by  the  belief  that  these  words  were  in  fact  the 
words  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  and  Lord  of  Christians,  and 
that  consequently  they  must  have  a  bearing  upon  Christians. 
The  writer  of  the  letter  believes  that  some  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  written  for  the  Jews,  some  parts  for  the 
Christians  c.  This  he  states  several  times  in  the  most  express 
language,  and  if  we  may  judge  from  the  instances  of  both 
which  he  adduces,  the  denunciations  were  designed  for  the 
Jews,  the  promises  and  exhortations  to  spiritual  improvement 
for  the  Christians.  The  reason  of  this  lay  in  the  circumstance 
that  the  Jews  could  not  comprehend  the  spiritual  nature  of 
the  messages  delivered  to  them.  They  took  the  words  liter- 
ally, they  obeyed  them  literally,  and  so  at  the  very  first  they 
were  excluded  from  God's  covenant.  The  fact  of  their  exclu- 
sion is  intimated  several  times.  "Tiie  Jews  lost  for  ever  that 
testament  which  Moses  received  ^^ ;"  "  Moses  cast  down  the 
tables  of  stone,  and  their  testament  was  broken  ^  •/'  "  And 
Moses  understood  that  they  had  again  made  molten  images, 
and  he  cast  the  tables  from  his  hands,  and  the  tables  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord  were  broken  to  pieces.  For 
Moses  indeed  received  them,  but  they  were  not  worthyf.'^ 
The  consequence  of  this  was  that  they  entirely  failed  to  re- 
cognise Christ  in  the  words  of  the  prophets,  and  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  thus  from  the  beginning  sealed 
to   them.       They  formed    carnal    and    outward    conceptions 

''  Tischendorrs  Greek  has  ws  yiypanrat.  "^  c  5-  ''  c.  4. 

«  c.  4.  <  c.  14. 


248  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

of  the  sacrifices,  of  tlie  reg'ulatioiis  about  animals,  of  cir- 
cumcision, of  the  sabbaths  and  the  temple,  and  so  they 
went  on  heaping-  sin  upon  sin.  How  then  are  these  mat- 
ters to  be  understood  ?  The  fact  that  the  Lord  must  be 
recognised  as  the  real  spokesman  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
the  fundamental  principle,  and  then  a  true  enlightenment,  a 
gnosis,  a  power  to  perceive  what  is  spiritual,  will  give  the  rest. 
And  so  the  author,  in  this  letter,  alfords  us  many  si)ecimens 
of  his  Gnostic  power  to  explain  the  Scriptures,  never  taking 
them  to  mean  what  they  seem  to  mean,  Imt  developing  from 
them  some  hidden  and  spiritual  idea.  In  doing  so  he  pro- 
ceeds on  no  principle,  but  that  of  finding  something  either 
about  the  Lord,  or  in  harmony  with  the  moral  or  spiritual 
aspects  of  Christianity.  Provided  he  does  this,  he  feels 
secure  that  his  gnosis  is  leading  him  right.  A  question 
arises  here :  Did  the  writer  believe  that  the  Jews  ought  not 
to  have  taken  the  literal  meaning  of  the  precepts  given  them, 
or  that  they  ought  to  have  obeyed  them  literally,  but  at  the 
same  time  with  a  clear  and  full  understanding  of  their  typical 
meaning  ?  We  cannot  help  thinking  that  he  went  so  far  as 
to  pronounce  the  Jews  wrong  in  at  all  regarding  them  as 
literal.  We  base  this  decision  on  two  passages.  In  speaking 
of  circumcision  he  says,  "  Therefore  He  has  circumcised  our 
ears,  that  hearing  the  word  we  might  believe;  for  the  cir- 
cumcision in  which  they  have  trusted  has  been  destroyed. 
For  He  has  said  that  the  circumcision  is  not  a  circumcision  of 
the  flesh  ;  but  they  transgressed,  for  an  evil  angel  deceived 
them-."  Now  here  at  first  sight  we  might  imagine  from  the 
use  of  the  perfects  that  the  writer  referred  to  the  abrogation 
of  circumcision  by  Christ  after  his  appearance  on  earth ;  but 
then  the  writer  nowhere  refers  to  such  an  abrogation,  while, 
as  we  have  seen,  he  distinctly  states  that  the  Jews  lost  the 
covenant  when  Moses  broke  the  tables.  Besides  this,  the 
meaning  of  the  first  sentence  may  possibly  be.  The  circum- 
cision in  which  tbey  have  trusted  has  been  brought  to  nought, 
that  is,  Jerusalem  has  been  destroyed,  the  covenant  of  which 

?^  c.  9. 


IV.]  '    BA  EX  ABAS.  249 

the  Jews  thoug-ht  eii'cumcision  was  a  seal  was  lost  long-  ago, 
and  now  their  very  hopes  in  the  direction  of  a  conquest  are 
completely  Irustrated.  But  wliatever  be  the  meaning  of  this 
sentence,  of  the  next  there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt.  It  plainly 
refers  to  the  Jews  of  all  times,  and  it  states  as  distinctly  as 
we  can  expect,  that  the  Jews  made  an  utter  mistake  in  sup- 
posing the  circumcision  of  the  flesh  to  be  what  was  meant 
by  !Moses,  and  their  mistake  was  the  work  of  an  evil  angel  ^>. 
The  second  passage  admits  of  a  double  translation.  It  runs, 
"  Why  has  Moses  said, '  Ye  shall  not  eat  the  pig,  &c.  ?'  He 
had  in  his  spiritual  meaning  three  propositions  (Soyjuara)  Under 
that  command.  Finally,  He  says  to  them  in  Deuteronomy, 
'  And  I  will  place  my  just  laws  before  this  people.^  Accord- 
ingly, then,  it  is  not  God^s  commandment  not  to  eat.  But 
Moses  spoke  in  spirit '."  The  otlier  translation  is,  "  Is  it 
not  God^s  commandment  then  not  to  eat  ?  Yes ;  but  Moses 
commanded  it  in  spirit."  We  adopt  the  first  translation 
for  the  following  reasons,  i.  By  making  apa  ^accordingly' 
we  find  a  reason  for  the  writer's  quotation  from  Deuteronomy. 
God  gave  his  people  biKaidonaTa,  not  mere  arbitrary  laws, 
such  as  a  prohibition  to  eat  what  could  in  itself  do  no  harm. 
2.  The  be  is  more  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  The  mere 
not-eating  was  not  a  commandment  of  God's,  but  there  was 
a  spiritual  commandment — Moses  was  giving  a  spiritual 
commandment.  And  so  the  writer  goes  on  to  explain  this 
spiritual  commandment.  But  even  taking  the  sentence  the 
other  way  we  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  "  Was  it  not 
a  commandment  not  to  eat?"  "Yes;  but  Moses  spoke 
spiritually."  What  does  this  mean  but  that  the  writer  does 
not  deny  the  existence  of  a  commandment,  but  he  refuses 
to  take  it  in  a  literal  sense.  It  was  a  commandment,  but 
still  only  a  spiritual  commandment.  So  that  from  both  in- 
terpretations we  gather  that  the  writer  believed  that  the  Jews 
were  wrong  in  refusing  to  eat,  and  wrong  in  not  perceiving 
the  spiritual  purport  of  the  commandments.  It  is  of  conse- 
quence to  remark  too,  that  the  explanation  of  the  writer  is 

h  See  Neander's  Church  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  407.   Bohn's  ed.         '  c.  lo. 


2:jO  the  apostolical   fathers.         [Chap. 

a  g-eneral  explanation  of  the  passajji'e,  not  an  historical  one. 
He  does  not  say.  Did  God  command  the  Jews  not  to  eat  ? 
but,  Is  it  now  a  commandment,  lying"  upon  us  in  the  Old 
Testament,  not  to  eat  ?  He  was  determining-  a  practical 
question,  but  though  doing  so,  the  determination  implies  a 
solution  of  the  historical  question.  From  these  two  passages 
we  infer  then  that  the  writer  regarded  the  practice  of  the 
Jewish  laws  at  any  time  as  a  mistake.  How  then,  one  may 
reasonably  ask,  did  he  view  the  Christian  practice  of  baptizing  ? 
On  this  subject  we  have  no  light.  The  writer  speaks  of 
baptism,  but  he  refers  solely  to  the  baptism  or  purification 
of  the  Jews.  He  speaks  of  water,  but  he  evidently  no  more 
means  by  water  simple  water  than  he  means  by  the  cross 
a  simple  piece  of  wood.  He  has  not  condescended  to  such 
externals.  Though  thus  absolutely  given  to  spiritual  mean- 
ing's, and  though  tied  hand  and  foot  to  the  habit  of  spiritual- 
izing every  thing,  he  must  sometimes  have  felt  twinges  about 
his  theoiy.  For,  unfortunately,  facts  occasionally  stood  in 
his  way.  Abraham  circumcised  his  household ;  many  of  the 
best  men  of  Israel  went  through  all  the  rites  commanded, 
and  Jesus  Himself  submitted  at  least  to  some  of  them.  How 
did  he  reconcile  these  with  his  theory  ?  The  most  probable 
explanation  is  that  he  did  not  attempt  to  reconcile  them, 
that  in  fact  he  had  formed  no  distinct  theory  of  the  matter ; 
that  he  was  not  a  profound  thinker,  and  could  quite  easily 
hold  to  things  that  are  irreconcilable  by  us,  and  that  as  his 
interpretation  was  a  practice,  and  his  gnosis  a  glory,  he 
rushed  on  in  his  Gnostic  interpretation,  careless  to  what  it 
might  lead  him,  but  sure  of  this  only,  that  it  would  lead  him 
to  something  great  and  good.  Unfortunately,  he  gloried  in 
his  weakness.  And  it  is  really  refreshing  to  turn  from  the 
consideration  of  the  absurdities  that  run  through  his  whole 
interpretation  to  a  glance  at  the  morality  which  his  work 
displays.  However  weak  and  misdirected  his  intellectual 
powers  may  be,  and  however  light  his  head  occasionally  may 
seem,  his  heart  always  beats  right.  There  is  not  one  expres- 
sion contrary  to  the  soundest  morality,  and  much  that  stands 


IV.]  BARNABAS.  251 

out  in  mag-nifieeut  contrast  to  the  morality  of  his  age,  even 
of  its  hit>-hest  philosophers.  Few  especial  points,  however,  de- 
mand notice.  He  distinctly  forbids  the  heathen  customs  of 
procuring  abortions,  and  exposing  or  killing  children.  He 
inculcates  the  care  of  one's  family,  love  to  one's  neighbour, 
and  a  universal  liberality.  He  forbids  schism  ;  he  urges  con- 
fession of  sin,  and  he  tells  Christians  that  they  were  not  to 
go  to  pra\^cr  with  a  bad  conscience  k. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  he  did  not 
deem  it  his  duty  to  speak  against  slavery.  In  a  passage 
quoted  already  from  c.  19,  both  male  and  female  slaves  are 
mentioned.  The  proprietor  is  not  ordered  to  dismiss  them, 
but  he  is  urged  ''  not  to  command  them  in  bitterness.''  And 
probably  the  exhortation  which  precedes  this  passage,  "  Thou 
shalt  be  subject  to  masters  as  the  image  of  God"  {tvth^o  ©eoi)), 
was  especially  intended  for  slaves.  In  the  same  chapter,  too, 
it  deserves  notice  that  while  he  adduces  nearly  all  the  com- 
mandments, he  never  mentions  the  observance  of  Sunday 
as  a  duty. 

IV.    LITERATURE. 

Dressel  mentions  five  manuscripts  of  the  epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas ;  two  in  the  Vatican,  two  in  other  libraries  at  Rome, 
which  he  calls  MS.  Barberinum  and  Cod.  Casanatensis,  and 
one  in  the  Medicean  Library  at  Florence.  Notices  of  these 
manuscripts  come  out  in  the  notice  of  the  editions. 

The  first  news  we  have  of  the  letter  of  Barnabas  in  modern 
times  is  from  Jacob  Sirmond,  who  obtained  a  copy  of  Poly- 
carp's  letter  from  the  Jesuit  Turrianus,  and  in  transcribing 
found  that  it  contained  also  the  letter  of  Barnabas.  Sirmond 
sent  a  copy  of  the  epistle  of  Polycarp  to  Halloix,  who  noticed 
that  it  contained  something  extraneous,  as  did  another  copy 
of  Polycarp's  letter  which  he  had  received  from  Andreas 
Schottus,   a   Jesuit.      Both   Sirmond   and  Halloix  then  sent 

•■  A  full  exposition  of  the  duties  to  God  and  Christ,  to  men,  and  to  oneself, 
is  given  in  the  three  commentationes  mentioned  above. 


•252  THE   APOSrOLTCAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

a  request  to  Cresollius,  who  was  at  that  time  living  at 
Rome,  to  examine  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  letter  of  Polycarp 
which  he  could  fall  in  with.  Cresollius  examined  two.  The 
one  of  these  is  that  which  Dressel  calls  Codex  Yaticanus 
859,  and  which  he  infers,  from  an  inscription  on  it,  cannot 
have  been  written  later  than  the  year  1173.  The  other  is 
the  Cod.  Ottobonianus  348,  which  Dressel  takes  to  belong 
to  the  fourteenth  century.  It  belonged  to  the  duke  of 
Altaemps,  formerly  Cardinal  Columna,  and  is  accordingly 
called  by  Cresollius  Codex  Columneus.  Cresollius  was  told 
that  it  was  the  most  ancient.  Dressel  believes  that  both 
codices  are  derived  from  the  same  source.  In  both,  the 
letter  of  Barnabas  was  joined  with  the  letter  of  Polycarp. 
Neither  Sirmond  nor  Halloix  published  the  letter.  Salma- 
sius  took  a  copy  of  the  manuscript  of  Schottus  already  men- 
tioned, and  gave  it  to  Vossius,  along  with  a  copy  of  a  Latin 
translation,  which  had  been  found  by  Hugo  Menardus  in 
the  monastery  of  Corbie.  Vossius  willingly  gave  his  copy 
to  Archbishop  Usher,  who  was  at  that  time  preparing  his 
edition  of  the  Ignatian  letters,  and  the  letter  of  Barnabas 
was  for  the  first  time  printed  in  Usher^s  edition  of  the 
Ignatian  letters  at  Oxford,  1643-  ^1  the  copies,  however, 
were  burnt  in  a  fire  that  broke  out  in  Oxford  in  1644. 
Meantime  Hugo  Menardus  had  been  preparing  an  edition 
of  the  letter  from  the  copy  which  he  had  received  from 
Sirmond,  but  he  did  not  live  to  see  it  finished.  It  was 
published  at  Paris,  1644,  after  his  death,  under  the  editor- 
ship of  Luc  Dachery,  and  contained,  besides  the  Greek 
text,  the  Latin  translation  found  in  the  Corbie  monaster}^'.  The 
text  of  this  edition,  as  might  be  expected,  was  very  unsatis- 
factoiy.     Vossius  felt  this,  and  resolved  to  prepare  a  better 

'  17  (pfpofxivrj  Tov  dyiov  Bapval3a  dno<JTu\ov  kntaToXi)  KaOoKiKT).  Sancti 
Barnabae  Apostoli  (ut  fertur^  epistola  Catholica.  Ab  antiquis  dim  Ecclesiae 
Patribus,  sub  ejusdem  nomine  laudata  et  usurpata.  Hanc  primum  e  tenebria 
emit,  Notisque  et  Obsei-vationibus  illustravit  R.  P.  domnus  Hugo  Menardus 
monachus  Congregationis  Sancti  Mauri  in  Gallia.  Opus  Posthumum.  Parisiis, 
1645.  The  preface  and  introduction  is  by  Dachery.  The  not«s  are  consider- 
able. 


IV.]  BARXABAS.  .253 

edition.  For  this  purpose  he  examined  three  manuscripts,  one 
in  the  Medieoan  Library  at  Florence,  and  the  other  two  in  Rome, 
one  in  the  Vatican,  and  the  other  belonging  to  the  Theatini. 
The  use  of  these  latter,  he  says,  he  owed  to  Lucas  Holstenius. 
His  edition  of  the  letter  of  Barnabas  appeared  along  with 
his  letters  of  Ignatius,  Amsterdam,  1646;  second  edition, 
London,  1680.  Vossius  gives  no  description  of  the  manu- 
scripts, his  notes  are  exceedingly  few,  and  he  does  not  set 
down  the  various  readings  of  the  codices.  The  Florentine 
manuscript  is  that  called  Cod.  Mediceus  (Pint.  Ivii.  num.  7) 
by  Dressel  (p.  Ixii.),  and  reckoned  by  Bandinius  to  belong  to 
the  eleventh  century.  The  manuscript  of  the  Theatine  library 
is  not  to  be  fo\ind  now.  And  the  codex  from  the  Vatican 
Library  is  that  mentioned  already  as  859.  The  letter  of 
Barnabas  was  subsequently  edited  by  Mader  (Helmstadt, 
1655),  and  in  the  collections  of  Cotelerius,  Russel,  Gallandi, 
Hefele,  Reitlnnayr,  and  Muralto.  It  was  published  separately 
by  Fell  (Oxford,  1685,  i2mo.),  and  by  Le  Moyne  in  his  Varia 
Sacra.  Dressel  has  examined  all  the  manuscripts  to  which 
he  could  get  access,  viz.,  the  five  mentioned  above,  and  has 
given  an  accurate  register  of  the  results.  The  two  manu- 
scripts which  we  have  not  yet  noticed  are  marked  by  him 
MS.  Barberinum  7,  and  Cod.  Casanatensis  G.  V.  14.  The 
Barberine  manuscript  is  a  copy  by  Lucas  Holstenius  from 
a  codex  which  has  disappeared.  The  Codex  Casanatensis 
contains  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  agrees  with  the 
Medicean  previously  noticed  in  very  many  points,  so  much 
so  that  at  first  sight  the  Medicean  seems  to  be  the  source 
of  the  Casanatensis.  But  Dressel  ol)served  decided  dif- 
i'erences.  The  letters  of  Polycarp  and  Barnabas  are  written 
by  a  different  hand.  The  codex  belongs  to  the  fifteenth 
century. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  letter  of  Barnabas  is  joined  to 
that  of  Polycarp  in  all  the  manuscripts.  And  all  of  them  also 
agree  in  omitting  the  first  four  chapters  found  in  the  Latin 
translation. 

A  copy  of  flic  Greek  original  of  Barnabas  has  been  found 


•254  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.     [Chap.  IV. 

by  Tischendorf,  and  has  been  published  in  two  forms;  in 
the  Biblioruni  Codex  Sinaitieus  Petropolitanus  and  in  the 
No\aim  Testamentum  Sinaitieum,  and  the  various  readings 
with  the  new  portion  of  Greek  are  given  in  the  second 
edition  of  DresseFs  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Opera.  The  Greek 
of  the  first  four  chapters  differs  considerably  from  the  Latin, 
but  the  differences  are  not  of  great  moment  as  far  as  the  senti- 
ments of  Barnabas  are  concerned.  In  the  other  chapters  the 
verbal  variations  are  exceedingly  numerous,  but  unimportant. 
Sometimes  its  readings  are  decidedly  superior  to  those  found 
in  the  other  MSS.,  and  it  contains  many  of  the  conjectural 
emendations  previously  proposed  by  scholars.  Sometimes, 
on  the  other  hand,  its  readings  are  unintelligible  and  per- 
plexing. The  genuineness  of  the  Greek  of  the  first  four 
chapters  is  open  to  doubt.  There  is  not  much  satisfactory 
evidence  on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  But  the  occurrence  of 
some  ver}^  peculiar  words,  and  the  impossibility  of  some  por- 
tions of  our  Latin  translation  having  been  based  on  it,  tell 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  newly-discovered  text. 

An  English  translation  is  given  in  "Wake's  Genuine  Epistles 
of  the  Apostolical  Fathers.  The  text  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex 
has  been  translated  with  great  care  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature  for  October  1 863,  and  April  1 864. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   PASTOR   OF    HERMAS. 
I.   AUTHORSHIP. 

1  HE  Pastor  of  Hermas  has  been  assigned  by  some  to 
Hermas  the  contemporary  of  the  Apostle  Patil,  and  by  others 
to  Hermas  the  brother  of  Pius  II.  As  nothing  more  is 
known  of  these  men  than  what  comes  out  in  the  discussion 
of  the  authorship  of  this  work,  we  proceed  to  this  part  of 
our  subject  at  once. 

The  external  testimony  commences  Avith  Irenseus.  He 
simply  quotes  from  the  book,  introducing  the  quotation  with 
these  words,  "  "Well  then  declared  the  Scripture  which  saysa/' 
It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  suppose  that  Irenaeus  re- 
garded the  work  as  inspired  from  the  mere  application  of  the 
word  '  writing^  or  '  scripture'  to  it.  He  applies  the  same  word 
occasionally  to  apocryphal  books  and  to  uninspired  writings, 
and  he  may  also  have  made  a  mistake,  fancying  that  the 
passage  he  quoted  was  Scripture.  Yet  still  it  would  be  only 
in  a  case  of  necessity  where  we  should  refuse  to  the  word  its 
common  application. 

The  next  witness  is  Clemens  Alcxandrinus.  He  refers  to 
the  work  several  times,  appealing  to  it  and  quoting  it  as  a 
credited  and  inspired  book.  "  The  shepherd,  the  messenger  of 
conversion,  says  to  Hermas  with  regard  to  the  false  prophet'' ;" 
"The  power  which  appeared  to  Hermas  says  to  him  in  the 
vision*".^^    More  fully  in  these  words  :  "  Divinely  therefore  does 

"  Contra  Hfpres.  iv.  lo.  2.  b  Strom.  T.  c.  xvii.  §  85.  p.  369. 

<■  Strom.  TI.  c.  i.  §  3.  p.  430. 


256  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

the  power  that  speaks  to  Hermas  by  revelation  say  that  the 
visions  and  revelations  are  on  account  of  the  douhtful,  who 
reason  in  their  hearts  if  these  things  are  really  so  or  not*!/' 
Besides  this,  he  quotes  larg-ely  from  the  epistle,  generally 
with  the  words,  "As  says  the  Pastor:"  lib.  ii.  pp.  452,  458; 
iv.  p.  596 ;  vi.  p.  764. 

The  next  witness  is  Origen,  in  whose  works  frequent  refer- 
ences to  the  book  occur.  The  substance  of  what  he  has  to  tell 
us  is  contained  in  the  following  sentences :  " '  Salute  Asyn- 
critus,  Phlegon,  Hermas,  Patrobas,  Hermes,  and  any  brethren 
that  may  be  with  them.''  In  regard  to  these  the  salutation  is 
simple,  nor  is  any  mark  of  praise  added  to  them.  I  think, 
however,  that  that  Hermas  [the  person  saluted  in  the  verse 
commented  on]  is  the  writer  of  that  book  which  is  called 
Pastor,  which  writing  seems  to  me  to  be  very  useful,  and, 
as  I  think,  divinely  inspired^."  It  is  plain  fi'om  this  that 
Origen  knew  absolutely  nothing  of  Hermas,  that  tradition 
entirely  failed  him  on  the  subject,  that  he  judged  the  book  a 
very  useful  book,  and  from  internal  evidence  regarded  it  as  di- 
vinely inspired,  and  that,  inferring  from  the  character  of  the 
book,  he  regarded  it  likely  that  apostolical  Hermas  was  the 
author.  The  whole  is  a  matter  of  mere  conjecture.  All  the  other 
quotations  of  Origen  are  in  harmony  with  the  opinions  here 
expressed.  In  one  passage  ^  he  appeals  to  it  as  Scripture  : 
"  Now  that  we  may  believe  on  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures that  these  things  are  so," — and  then  he  quotes,  in  proof, 
passages  from  the  Maccabees,  "  the  book  of  the  Pastor  in 
the  first  commandment,"  and  the  Psalms.  In  another  pas- 
sage he  gives  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  a  very  literal 
statement  in  the  work,  just  as  if  it  were  Scripture.  He 
mentions  that  the  book  "  seems  to  be  despised  by  someS,"  but 
in  such  a  way  that  it  is  plain  he  was  very  far  from  sharing  in 
the  contempt.  Hefele,  indeed,  has  adduced  another  passage 
from  Origen  to  prove  that  he  has  spoken  slightingly  of  the  book. 
The  quotation,  however,  he  has  made  is  a  mistake  which  it 

•*  Strom.  I.  xxix.  §  i8i.  p.  426.      <^  Comment,  in  Rom.  [xvi.  14.]  lib.  x.  31. 
^  De  Prin(ii>iis,  lil>.  II.  i.  5.  ^^  Ibid.,  lib.  IV.  xi.  p.  168  (Greeks 


v.]  THE    I'Asrol!    OF    lIKliMAS.  25? 

would  not  l)e  worth  noticing',  had  it  not  been  so  frequently 
copied.  Het'ele  applies  the  words  "if  it  pleases  any  one  to 
receive  such  a  scripture'''  to  the  Pastor  of  Hermas.  A  glance 
at  the  passag-e  will  show  that  he  is  wrong :  "  We  read — if 
however  it  pleases  any  one  to  receive  such  a  scripture — that 
the  angels  of  justice  and  iniquity  contended  about  the  salva- 
tion and  destruction  of  Abraham,  while  both  troops  wish  to 
claim  him  for  their  assembly.  If  any  one  is  displeased  with 
this,  let  him  turn  to  the  volume  which  is  entitled  the  Pastor, 
and  he  will  find  that  all  men  have  two  angels,  a  bad  one  who 
exhorts  to  wickedness,  and  a  good  one  who  persuades  all  that 
is  best^.'-'  Origen  here  turns  away  from  a  doubtful  scripture 
to  the  trustworthy  statement  of  the  Pastor.  .  In  two  other 
passages,  indeed,  Horn.  viii.  on  Numbers,  and  Hom.  i.  on 
Psalm  xxx^^i.,  Origen  appends  the  words  "sicui  tamen  scrip- 
tura  ilia  recipienda  videtur,''  "  si  cui  tamen  libellus  ille  re- 
cipiendus  videtur,''  to  quotations  from  the  Pastor,  but 
even  if  these  words  do  not  owe  their  origin  to  the  Latin 
translator  or  some  annotator,  they  merely  indicate  that 
Origen  allowed  the  possibility  of  the  rejection  of  the  inspired 
character  of  the  work.  They  say  nothing  of  the  personal 
opinion  of  Origen  himself. 

The  next  witness  is  Eusebius,  whose  words  are  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect :  "  Since  the  same  apostle,  in  his  salutations  at 
the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  has  made  mention 
among  others  of  Hermas,  who  is  said  to  be  the  author  of 
the  book  of  the  Shepherd,  it  ought  to  be  known  that  this 
book  also  has  been  spoken  against  by  some,  on  account  of 
whom  it  cannot  be  placed  among  the  undisputed  scriptures, 
but  by  others  it  has  been  judged  most  necessary  for  those 
who  are  in  need  of  introductory^  grounding  in  the  elements. 
Whence  also  we  know  that  it  has  been  already  publicly 
read  in  the  churches,  and  I  have  noticed  that  some  of 
the  most  ancient  writers  have  used  it'.''  Eusebius  does 
not  expressly  state  his  opinion,  but  it  is  clear  that   he  is 

••  Horn   XXXV.  in  Luc.  '  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  3, 

VOL.  J.  S 


258  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

strongly  inclined  at  least  to  i)laee  it  among  inspired  books. 
In  another  place  he  quotes  the  passage  of  Irenseus  adduced 
above,  as  proof  that  that  early  writer  regarded  it  as  inspired*. 
In  a  thirdJ,  he  seems  by  placing  it  among  the  spurious 
writings  [h  toIs  vodois)  to  declare  against  it.  But  the  context 
plainly  shows  that  we  must  take  'spurious'  in  a  modified  sense, 
as  equivalent  to  '  antilegomena.' 

We  need  not  go  farther  in  our  evidence.  The  sum  and 
substance  of  what  we  learn  is  that  Origen  and  Eusebius 
knew  nothing  of  Hermas  or  the  author  of  the  book,  and  if 
this  were  the  case,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  vmcritical,  unin- 
quiring  age  that  followed,  would  present  new  facts.  Jerome 
simply  repeats  the  statements  of  Origen  and  Eusebius,  and 
adds  that  in  his  time  also  the  book  was  read  in  certain 
churches  of  Greece,  but  was  almost  unknown  among  the 
Latins.  He  himself  places  it  alongside  of  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  the  Book  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  Judith  and 
Tobias,  as  uncanonicali^.  So  did  Rufinus  and  councils  of  the 
Church.  Athanasius^  speaks  of  it  as  a  most  useful  book, 
and  quotes  it  very  much,  as  Origen  did  before  him,  but  says 
that  it  was  not  part  of  the  canon'". 

The  early  witnesses  adduced  without  a  single  exception 
were  inclined  to  regard  the  book  as  divine.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  only  evidence  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  they 
had  was  internal,  and  we  have  seen  also  that  there  were  some 
who  opposed  its  inspiration.  Tertullian  was  one  of  these, 
and  from  the  way  in  which  he  speaks  we  gather  that  the 
only  evidence  which  he  had  was  also  internal.  He  notices 
the  book  three  times.  The  most  characteristic  passage  is  the 
following.  He  is  arguing  in  favour  of  the  Montanist  opinion 
that  a  Christian  who  has  committed  adultery  cannot  by  re- 
pentance become  a  Christian  again.  "  But  I  would  give  in  to 
you  if  the  writing  of  the  Pastor,  which  alone  loves  adulterers, 


'  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecol.  v.  8.  >  Ibid.  iii.  25^  ^  In  Prologo  Graleato. 

'  De  Incamatione  Verbi . 

'«  De  Decretis  Synodi  Nica-uae  :  in  Epistola  Pascliali . 


\.]  TllK    FASTOli    OF   11  EI! MAS.  2.0'.) 

had  deserved  to  be  reckoned  a  divine  book  ",  if  it  were  not 
jvidg-ed  by  every  council  even  of  your  [catholic  or  orthodox] 
churches  as  apocryphal  and  spurious"."  In  the  same  treatise 
he  alludes  to  the  work  as  "  that  apocryphal  Shepherd  of 
adulterers,"  and  affirms  that  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  (he  means 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  "was  more  received  in  the  churches 
than  it  P."  The  other  reference  to  the  work  is  much  more 
indefinite.  In  disciissing  the  position  of  the  body  which 
should  follow  prayer,  he  puts  the  question,  "  What  if  that 
Hermas,  whose  writing  is  generally  entitled  Pastor,  on  con- 
cluding prayer  had  not  sat  upon  the  couch  but  done  some- 
thing else,  should  we  set  that  also  down  as  a  practice  to 
be  observed  ?  Certainly  not  ^."  Some  have  thought  that 
Tertullian  held  a  higher  opinion  of  the  Pastor  when  he  wrote 
his  treatise  De  Oratione  than  when  he  ^vrote  the  one  De 
Pudicitia.  But  such  a  supposition  is  entirely  unwarranted. 
He  did  not  require  to  appeal  to  the  apocryphal  character  of 
the  book  in  this  instance.  And  though  the  '  ille''  of  itself 
might  have  little  particular  force,  yet  when  we  know  his 
opinion  as  expressed  in  De  Pudicitia,  there  is  good  reason  for 
regarding  it  here  as  an  expression  of  contempt.  From  Ter- 
tullian then  we  gather  that  the  Pastor  was  rejected  as  spurious 
by  the  councils  of  some  churches.  He  himself  when  a  Mon- 
tanist  also  unhesitatingly  rejected  it,  and  makes  known  the 
grounds  of  his  rejection  in  calling  it  the  Pastor  of  adulterers. 
He  knew  nothing  of  the  authorship,  but  the  book  itself  did 
not  deserve  to  l)e  reckoned  an  inspired  one. 

These  are  all  the  testimonies  that  speak  of  the  apostolical 
Hermas  as  author.  The  other  Hermas  is  maintained  to  be 
the  author  on  two  authorities — a  fragment  found  by  Muratori, 
and  attributed  by  Bunsen  to  Hegesippus,  and  three  verses 
in  a  poem  falsely  ascribed  to  Tertullian.  The  Muratori 
fragment  is  to  this  effect :  "  The  Pastor  was  written  very 
lately  in  our  times  in  the  city  of  Rome  by  Hermas,  while 
Bishop  Pius  his  brother  sat  in  the  chair  of  the  church  of  the 

"  "Divino  instnimento  meruisset  incidi."  °  De  Pudicit.  c.  x. 

I'  De  Pudicit.  c.  XX.  <l  De  Oratione,  c.  xvi, 

a  2 


260  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

city  of  Rome."  The  poem  informs  us,  "  That  now  in  the  ninth 
place  Hyginus  got  the  chair,  and  tlien  after  him  Pius,  whose 
brother  Hennas  was  the  Angelic  Pastor,  because  he  spoke 
words  given  to  him/^  This  is  all  the  evidence.  An  un- 
authenticated  fragment  which  pretends  to  have  been  WTitten 
near  the  time  of  Hermas,  and  a  poem  which  is  anonymous 
and  stupid,  are  the  sole  authorities,  if  we  can  give  them  such 
a  name,  for  this  opinion.  Some  indeed  add  a  third,  one  of 
the  letters  forged  in  the  name  of  Pius,  where  one  Hermas  is 
mentioned  as  the  author ;  and  it  is  stated  that  in  his  book 
a  commandment  was  given  through  an  angel  to  observe  the 
Passover  on  a  Sunday.  In  our  consideration  of  the  author- 
ship we  may  omit  this  third  witness  as  not  trustworthy  and 
a  bungler.  Not\A4thstanding  this,  however,  we  should  have 
given  the  statement  at  least  some  consideration,  had  it  not 
been  indirectly  contradicted  by  all  other  witnesses.  There 
is  something  appropriate  in  the  date  fixed  on  for  the  composi- 
tion. There  is  nothing  known  of  Hermas  the  brother  of 
Pius  which  should  prevent  us  from  regarding  it  as  his  pro- 
duction, for  we  know  absolutely  nothing  of  him,  not  even 
that  there  was  such  a  man.  But  it  is  plain  that  if  Origen, 
or  Eusebius,  or  Tertullian  had  known  an^'thing  about  this 
Hermas,  or  had  ever  heard  him  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  authorship  of  the  Pastor,  they  could  have  had  no 
difficulty  in  settling  the  inspiration.  The  work  could  not  for  a 
moment  have  been  placed  by  them  even  among  the  antilego- 
mena.  The  arguments  they  use  for  or  against  the  inspiration  go 
on  the  supposition  either  that  the  writer  was  the  apostolical 
Hermas,  or  some  one  who  pretended  to  be  that  person.  They 
were  entirely  ignorant  of  any  other  author,  and  it  is  not  likely 
that  the  authors  of  this  fragment  and  the  poem  would  know 
better  than  Origen  or  Eusebius.  It  is  far  more  likely  that 
after  councils  had  pronounced  the  book  uninspired,  the  story 
was  got  up,  probably  by  some  revelation,  that  the  real 
writer  was  Hermas,  a  brother  of  Pope  Pius. 

Perhajjs,  too,  there  is  some   weight   in  what  Bellarmine"" 
■■  De  Script.  Eccles.  p.  48  ;  Paris  ed.  1617. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR    OF  HE  KM  AS.  261 

says  in  regard  to  Jerome's  statement  that  the  work  was  almost 
unknown  among  the  Latins  :  "  At  si  auctor  libri  fuisset  homo 
Latinus  et  Romani  pontificis  frater,  debuisset  liber  ipsius  notior 
Latinis  esse  quam  Grtecis."  Notwithstanding,  the  internal 
evidence  goes  to  show  that  the  work  was  written  in  Italy. 

On  applying  to  the  work  itself  for  information  as  to  its 
author,  we  are  involved  in  still  greater  difficulties.  The 
author  says  that  he  was  carried  away  by  angels,  sometimes 
to  a  lofty  rock,  sometimes  to  a  mountain,  and  indeed  to  places 
of  all  kinds.  He  meets  with  angels  and  talks  of  them,  and 
he  sees  rare  and  marvellous  visions.  Are  we  to  believe  that 
he  fancied  all  this  was  real  ?  Origen  and  others  fancied 
this,  because  they  regarded  the  book  as  inspired.  But  their 
opinion,  as  we  have  seen,  was  based  on  an  unsupported  guess. 
If  it  was  not  inspired,  then  either  the  writer  fancied  that  he 
had  seen  these  visions,  or  tried  to  make  other  people  fancy 
this,  or  he  clothed  the  work  in  a  fictitious  form  designedly 
and  undisguisedly.  If  he  did  the  first  he  must  have  been 
silly  ^  If  he  did  the  second  he  must  have  been  an  impostor. 
If  he  did  the  third,  he  has  done  only  what  multitudes  of 
others  have  done  after  him,  with  John  Bunyan  at  their  head. 
And  there  is  by  far  the  greatest  likelihood  that  he  was  an 
honest,  upright,  and  thoughtful  man,  one  who  would  scorn 
a  deception.  Now  if  the  work  is  fictitious  in  its  angels, 
its  towers,  its  beasts,  its  women  representing  the  churches 
and  virtues,  and  its  localities,  what  good  reason  have  we  for 
supposing  that  the  single  man  introduced  as  the  narrator  is 
not  also  a  fictitious  character  ?  On  the  contrary,  the  state- 
ments made  in  the  work  with  regard  to  Hermas  and  his 
family  seem  to  us  to  force  the  conclusion  that  they  are  fic- 
titious. Is  it  likely,  for  instance,  that  a  man  would  in  one 
part  praise  himself  in  the  most  extravagant  terms,  and  in 
another  hold  himself  up  as  having  been  a  deliberate  liar  his 

s  Jani  van  Gilse  has  tried  to  show  that  Hennas  was  a  mystic,  Comment, 
pp.  85  ff.  ;  but  his  arguments  would  prove  John  Bunyan  also  to  be  a  mystic. 
The  Irvingite  Thiersch  finds  in  them  almost  the  only  remains  of  uncanonical 
prophecy  ;  p.  353. 


262  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

whole  life  ?  Is  it  likely  that  a  man  would  describe  his  wife 
as  having-  a  malicious  tong-ne  and  his  children  as  profligate  ? 
Yet  these  things,  and  a  good  deal  more,  does  Hermas  do. 
That  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself,  however,  we  lay 
before  him  what  is  said  of  Hermas  and  his  family. 

The  name  Hermas  occurs  only  twice  or  thrice  in  the  work, 
in  the  commencement  of  the  first  book.  His  visions  began 
thus.  He  tells  us  that  the  man  who  had  brought  him  up  sold 
a  certain  girl  at  Rome,  or,  according  to  the  Palatine  Codex, 
sold  him  to  a  certain  woman.  After  a  long  time  he  began 
to  love  her  as  a  sister,  and  wished  in  his  heart  he  had  such 
a  beautiful  and  good  woman  for  his  wife.  Then  as  he  is 
walking  and  thinking  about  the  beauty  of  God''s  creation, 
the  Spirit  carries  him  away,  and  the  woman  whom  he  had 
desired  for  his  wife  looks  down  from  heaven  and  accuses  him 
of  sinful  thought.  Hermas  cannot  understand  how  he  has 
committed  sin,  but  at  last  a  woman  appears  to  him, and  tells 
him  that  thought  causes  sin,  but  that  God  is  angry  with 
him  not  on  account  of  his  own  sins,  but  on  account  of  the 
sins  of  his  family.  They  are  said  to  have  committed  "  wicked- 
ness against  the  Lord  and  their  parents.''  Hermas  is  blamed 
because  out  of  too  great  love  to  them  he  had  not  warned 
them,  but  allowed  them  to  lead  a  dissolute  life,  and  because 
on  account  of  their  sins  he  had  been  so  engrossed  in  secular 
business  as  to  forget  God,  (consumtus  es  a  secularibus  ne- 
gotiiss).  The  crime  of  the  family  is  pointed  out  elsewhere 
in  these  terms  :  "  Thy  seed  have  sinned  against  the  Lord, 
and  betrayed  their  parents  in  great  wickedness;"  and  the 
Palatine  Codex  adds,  "  they  blasphemed  the  Lord*."  The 
meaning  of  this  is  probably  that  his  family  had  informed 
against  Hermas  to  the  government.  It  is  added,  however, 
"  that  they  got  no  good  by  their  treachery.  But  even  yet 
they  added  to  their  sins  lusts  {'  luxuries'  Palat.)  and  the  defile- 
ments of  iniquities,  and  thus  they  filled  up  their  iniquities." 
Their  extravagance,  it  would  seem,  had  run   away  with  the 

•  Vis.  i.  3.  t  Ibid.  ii.  2. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR    OF  HERMA8.  263 

property  of  Hermas;  his  foolish  indulgence  of  his  children 
had  led  him  to  devote  himself  to  biisiness,  and  sorrow  and 
vexation  had  come  upon  him.  He  had  been  once  rich,  but 
now  his  riches  had  been  greatly  diminished,  and  he  was  more 
fit  in  consequence  of  this  diminution  for  the  service  of  God". 
A  change  had  come  over  him,  and  he  is  now  commissioned 
to  teach  his  family.  He  is  to  chide  his  sons  and  his  wife. 
His  wife  he  is  to  order  to  "  restrain  her  tongue  with  which 
she  acts  maliciously^.^'  He  is  to  forget  the  injuries  which 
his  sons  have  done  him,  and  "  to  take  care  that  they  be 
purged  from  their  sinsy.'''' 

With  regard  to  himself  Hermas  says,  "  I  have  never  spoken 
a  true  word  in  my  life,  but  I  have  always  lived  in  pretence, 
and  have  affirmed  a  lie  for  the  truth  to  all^.^^  On  the  other 
hand,  he  is  described  as  "  patient  and  self-restraining  (modes- 
tus) ,  and  always  cheerful ;''  as  '^  abstaining  from  all  concu- 
piscence, and  full  of  all  simplicity  and  great  innocence  ^.^'  And 
in  another  passage  it  is  said  that  he  will  be  saved,  "  because 
thou  hast  not  departed  from  the  living  God.  And  thy  sim- 
plicity and  singular  self-restraint  (continentia)  Avill  render 
thee  safe,  if  thou  abide  in  them''." 

Assuming  Hermas  to  be  the  author,  writers  have  keenly 
discussed  whether  he  was  a  clergyman  or  a  layman.  We 
have  seen  that  he  was  taken  up  with  secular  employments 
(secularia  negotia),  and  such  words  as  "  you  have  been  involved 
in  your  wicked  businesses"  (negotiationibus  tuis  malignis 
implicitus  es  c)  scarcely  admit  of  a  doubt  that  Hermas  at 
one  time  was  a  merchant  of  some  kind  or  other.  Nor  have 
we  any  reason  to  believe  that  he  gave  up  his  business. 
The  work  does  not  urge  to  the  utter  rejection  of  business 
or  riches,  but  to  the  adherence  to  one  business  and  the  cir- 
cumscribing of  riches.  There  cannot  also  be  any  doubt  that 
Hermas  was  a  teacher  in  the  church.  He  is  commissioned 
to  exhort  men  to  repent^,  and  he  is  promised  the  remission 

"  Vis.  iii.  6.  "  Ibid.  ii.  2.  >  Ibid.  3. 

*  Mand.  iii.  "  Vis.  i.  2.  ''  Ibid.  ii.  3. 

•=  Vis.  ii.  3.  ''  Maud.  xii.  3  ;  Sim.  viii.  11. 


■2M  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  [Chap. 

of  his  great  offence  if  he  teach  the  word  daily«^.  It  will 
be  seen  that  it  is  possible,  as  far  as  the  statements  of  the 
text  go,  that  Hermas  may  have  been  no  longer  a  mer- 
chant when  he  became  a  teacher,  but  the  prol)aljiIity  is 
that  he  was  both  at  the  same  time,  and  that  churches  in  his 
day  were  very  ready  to  be  instructed  by  any  one,  whatever 
his  profession,  who  could  instruct  them.  There  is  no  reason, 
however,  to  suppose  that  Hermas  was  either  a  presbyter  or 
deacon.  The  riglit  of  teaching  in  those  days  belonged  to 
him  who  had  the  gift.  The  inference  has  been  drawn  from 
the  words,  "  Thou  wilt  read  in  this  city  with  the  elders 
who  are  over  the  church  V^  that  he  was  one  of  the  elders,  but 
the  inference  is  unwarranted,  and  indeed,  if  the  Greek  of 
Origen  here  represented  the  original,  Hermas  is  appointed 
to  teach  the  elders  what  they  are  to  do,  at  least  in  the  one 
matter  referred  to.  "  Thou  wilt  proclaim^^  are  the  words  "  to 
the  elders  of  the  church,^^   [(tv  6€  di^ayyeAeis  roij  irpeajSyTipoLs 

The  date  of  this  composition  is  matter  of  considerable  dif- 
ficulty, for  there  is  no  very  precise  indication.  Some  have 
supposed  that  several  passages  afford  warrant  for  inferring 
that  it  was  written  soon  after  the  death  of  the  apostles. 
Mention,  thev  fancy,  is  made  of  those  who  were  contemj)orary 
with  apostles  as  still  surviving^.  But  supposing  the  inter- 
pretation correct,  we  are  left  to  a  very  wide  margin,  for  a 
man  who  was  a  contemporary'  of  apostles,  especially  of  John 
who  died  about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  might 
live  far  into  the  second  century.  Another  passage  adduced 
speaks  of  Clemens  and  Grapte.  Clemens  was  to  send  one 
book  to  foreign  nations,  and  Grapte,  whom  modern  com- 
mentators take  to  have  been  a  deaconess,  was  to  admonish 
the  widows  and  orphans '\  This  Clemens,  it  is  maintained, 
can  be  no  other  than  the  Clemens  known  to  us  by  his  letter  ; 
and  here  he  is  spoken  of  as  alive.  Hence  the  Pastor  must 
have  been  written  before  his  death.  Why  he  should  be  no 
other  than  the  Roman  Clemens,  why  he  should  not  be   fic- 

•  Vis.  i.  3.  '  Ibid.  ii.  4.  s  Ibid.  iii.  5.  ''  Ibid.  ii.  4. 


v.]  THE    FA  ST  OR    OF    HERMAS.  265 

titious,  or  why  he  should  not  be  some  other  one  of  the  many 
who  bore  that  name,  we  are  not  informed.  The  supposition 
has  not  a  whit  more  authority  than  the  idea  of  Orig-en  that 
Clemens  means  the  spiritual  man  and  Grapte  the  literal. 

Some  also  have  found  a  proof  of  the  lateness  of  the  work 
in  a  supposed  reference  to  the  snhintroducta ;  but  this  can  be 
reg-arded  as  a  proof  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  custom 
of  having"  suhintrodudce  was  a  custom  of  late  origin.  Besides 
this,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  there  is  a  distinct  reference 
to  a  well-recognised  class,  or  rather  an  accidental  similarity 
arising"  from  the  peculiar  turn  of  the  nan'ative.  Hermas  is 
left  to  the  care  of  the  virgins  who  represent  the  virtues. 
They  ask  him  to  spend  the  nig-ht  with  them,  and  sleep  with 
him.  "  You  will  sleep  with  us,"  say  they,  "  but  as  a  brother, 
not  as  a  husband ;  for  you  are  our  brother.^^  The  making 
of  Hermas  a  brother  is  natural  enoug-h  in  the  circumstances 
of  the  allegory,  and  might  therefore  have  happened  in 
any  age. 

The  two  ascertained  limits  of  a  date  which  we  have,  are  the 
death  of  the  apostles,  which  is  affirmed  oftener  than  once, 
(Vis.  iii.  5;  Sim.  ix.  15,  16,  25,)  and  the  time  of  Irenaeus. 
The  mode  in  which  mention  is  made  of  the  apostles  leads 
us  to  believe  that  a  succession  of  teachers  had  passed  away ; 
so  that  some  time  must  have  elapsed  since  the  death  of 
the  apostles.  Other  assertions  tend  towards  the  same  con- 
clusion. The  gospel  is  spoken  of  as  preached  in  the  whole 
world.  "  All  nations  which  are  under  heaven  have  heard 
and  believed"."  No  great  stress  can  be  laid  on  such  an 
hyperbolical  expression  as  this ;  for  such  an  assertion  was 
made  at  a  much  earlier  period.  But  considerable  stress  may 
be  laid  on  the  representation  given  us  in  the  work  of  the 
character  and  circumstances  of  the  Christian  church.  Evils 
and  corruption  are  described  as  having  invaded  it.  Many  of 
the  Christians  had  lost  themselves  in  worldly  pursuits ;  many 
had  become  deserters  in  the  hour  of  trial  (transfugse  et 
proditores    ecclesia;'^)  ;    and   the    work    is   written    especially 

'  Sim.  ix.  17.  k  Ibid.  viii.  6. 


•i()«)  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

for  the  purpose  of  calling-  back  to  repentance  those  Chris- 
tians who  had  left  the  ri^^ht  path.  The  references  to 
the  persecutions  of  Christians  are  also  clear  indications  of 
the  comparative  lateness  of  the  work.  The  martyrs  are 
described  as  enduring  wild  beasts,  scourges,  prisons,  crosses, 
for  His  name^s  sake'.  The  mode  of  procedure  with  regard  to 
them  is  deliberate  :  "  They  are  led  to  the  powers  and  inter- 
rogated™.'' Such  a  description  as  this  is  scarcely  applicable 
to  the  outbursts  against  the  Christians  in  the  reigns  of  Nero 
and  Domitian,  but  refers  us  to  a  time  when  the  proceedings 
against  the  Christians  were  judicial.  We  thus  cannot  go 
farther  back  than  the  rescript  of  Trajan  ;  and  taking  all  the 
circumstances  into  consideration,  and  noting  the  respect 
paid  to  martyrs,  we  incline  to  the  opinion  that  it  was  written 
either  towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Hadrian  or  in  the 
reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  ". 

The  place  in  which  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  was  written  is 
also  matter  of  doubt.  The  whole  scenery  of  the  visions  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  written  in  Italy.  The  writer 
mentions  Rome,  Ostia,  and  Cumse°.  He  also  refers  to  the 
Italian  custom  of  fixing  vines  to  elms.  The  only  foreign 
place  he  mentions  is  Ai-cadia.  As  the  work  is  also  professedly 
addressed  to  a  church  in  a  city,  the  city  can  scarcely  be  any 
other  than  Rome.  W  hether  Hermas  was  originally  a  Jew, 
or  indeed  what  he  was  at  all,  it  is  useless  to  debate. 

]\Iany  writers  think  they  can  trace  in  the  work  a  strong 
Judaistic  element^;  though  one  scholar,  RitschH,  sees  in  it 
a  tendency  towards  Paulinism.  The  principal  marks  of  the 
supposed  Judaistic  element  are  the  following.  The  writer 
lays  especial  stress  on  the  doctrine  that  there  is  one  God  who 
has  made  all  things.  This  is  his  first  and  fundamental  article 
of  belief;  and  proof  is  adduced  to  show  that  it  was  also  the 
first  and  fundamental  article    of  the  Ebionitic  behef.     This 

J  Vis.  iii.  2.  m  Sim.  is.  28. 

n  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Viiter,  p.  160.  "  See   Abstract. 

P  Schwegler,  Nachapostolisches  Zeitalter,  vol.  i.p.  333  :  Hilgenfeld,  p.  166. 

':  Altkatholische  Kirche,  p.  290. 


v.]  THE    I'ASTOH    OF   HERMAN.  -fij 

correspondence  is  fancied  to  arise  from  the  Judaistic  element 
in  the  writer.  The  writer's  views  with  regard  to  Christ 
are  especially  supposed  to  be  Ebionitic.  The  Holy  Spirit, 
according  to  Baur  and  others^  is  represented  here  as  not  only 
the  higher  being  of  Christ,  but  as  identical  with  the  pre- 
existence  of  the  Son ;  while  Hilgenfeld  supposes  the  writer 
to  mean  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  the  only  power  which  imme- 
diately proceeds  from  God/'  and  this  power  is  represented 
as  first  working  in  the  body  of  Christ.  Both  Baur  and 
Hilgenfeld  suppose  these  notions  to  arise  from  the  Judaistic 
desire  to  keep  the  imity  of  the  Godhead  intact — the  Holy 
Spirit  being  identical  with  the  divine  nature  of  God,  and 
Christ  as  such  not  properly  and  fully  divine,  though  elevated 
above  man.  Hilgenfeld  even  supposes  that  Hermas  regarded 
Christ  as  in  some  way  the  chief  of  angels,  and  an  angel  Himself. 
He  grounds  this  supposition  on  an  arbitrary  reference  of  the 
word  '  angel '  to  Christ  in  several  passages ;  and  then  he  finds 
a  similarity  between  Hermas,  who  speaks  of  six  superior 
angels,  and  the  later  Jewish  teaching,  which  recognised  seven 
superior  angels,  Hermas,  according  to  Hilgenfeld,  evidently 
meaning  Christ  for  the  seventh  and  chief  of  the  angels. 
Besides  this,  he  regards  the  whole  angel-system  as  Judaistic"". 
He  recognises  traces  of  Judaism  in  the  doctrine  of  Hermas 
with  regard  to  the  Church  and  the  work  of  salvation.  Such 
are  the  principal  proofs  of  the  Judaistic  element.  We 
cannot  help  thinking  that  we  have  here  a  baseless  fabric. 
As  we  shall  see  in  our  discussion  of  his  theology,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  teaching  of  Hermas  with  regard  to  God, 
Christ,  the  Church,  or  the  work  of  salvation,  which  is  con- 
trary to  the  truths  or  spirit  of  Christianity.  He  does  not 
enter  largely  into  some  of  these  subjects,  it  is  true ;  but  we 
have  no  right  to  infer  from  his  silence  that  he  diifered  from 
the  Christian  Church,  or  that  his  mind  was  peculiarly  open 
to  Judaic  or  Ebionitic  teachers. 

'  On  the  thoroughly  anti -Ebionitic  opinions  of  Hermas  with  regard  to 
Christ,  see  a  very  able  discussion  in  Domer's  Entwicklungslohre,  vol.  i. 
pp.  1 86  fF.,  and  Wefttcott's  History  of  the  Canon,  p.  227. 


268  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

T^Tiere  he  got  his  ang-els,  and  what  previous  works  he 
imitated  in  his  Visions  and  Similitudes,  are  questions  of  a 
totally  different  nature ;  for  a  man  may  get  many  of  his 
beliefs  and  his  maehineiy  from  sources  from  which  he  might 
differ  in  all  that  is  essential. 

Hilgenfeld  finds  another  sign  of  Jewish  tendency  in  the 
blame  attached  to  "those  who  lived  with  foreign  nations*/' 
words  which  he  thinks  "  call  to  mind  the  iura  Ta>v  edvtov 
(tvvi](j6i€i>,  which  Peter  first  permitted  himself,  and  after- 
wards, from  fear  of  the  Judaists,  shrank  from"."  If  there 
were  any  real  similarity  here,  there  would  be  good  reason 
for  suspecting  Hermas  of  Judaistic  tendencies;  but  there 
is  no  real  similarity.  Hermas  here  blames  Christians — 
Jewish  and  heathen  Christians  —  for  liA-iug-  with  foreis-n 
nations,  not  because  foreign  nations  were  'common/  but 
because  habitual  intercourse  with  them,  and  continual  ab- 
sence from  the  society  of  Christians,  led  Christians  into 
a  heathenish  and  worldly  life.  Some  indeed,  even  of  them, 
are  represented  as  retaining  the  faith  in  their  hearts,  but, 
surrounded  by  the  vanities  of  this  life,  they  did  not,  and 
could  not,  carry  out  their  faith  into  full  practice,  in  the 
comforting  and  helping  of  their  brethren  and  the  spread  of 
the  truth. 

Earlier  commentators  have  found  in  Hermas  all  manner  of 
heresies.  Blondellus  speaks  of  him  as  an  "  impure  dogmatist, 
the  fountain  of  Novatians  and  Pelagians,  a  whirlpool  of 
Montanistic  opinions^."  The  Count  de  Gasparin  has  repeated 
these  foolish  accusations.  He  says  that  "  Hermas  reproduces 
all  the  false  doctrines  of  his  predecessors — clerical  authority, 
materialised  unity,  baptismal  regeneration,  salvation  by  pe- 
nance, meritorious  indigence."  And  then  he  gives  "two  of 
the  errors  which  are  his  owoiy."  Some,  on  the  other  hand, 
have    supposed    him    to    attack   false   opinions.      Cotelerius 

'  Sim.  viii.  9.  u  Gal.  ii.  12.     Hilgenfeld,  Ap.  Vivter,  p.  175. 

■■«  Apol.  pp.  16,  17,  quoted  by  Bull,  who  defends  Hermas  against  Blondellus 
and  others  :  Defens.  Fid.  Nicaen.  i.  2.  3. 

y   Christianity  in  the  First  Three  Centuries,  p.  91. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF    IIERMAS.  2G9 

thoug-ht  the  work  a  defence  of  Christianity  against  Mon- 
tanism.  A  modern  critic,  Ritschlz,  has  traced  tendencies 
similar  to,  and  contemporary  with,  Montanism,  in  its  ideas  of 
fasting-,  repentance,  and  second  marriag-e ;  and  his  opinion 
has  been  adopted  by  Westcott^.  Westcott  adds  to  this  that 
•'the  book  is  of  the  highest  valne  as  showing-  in  what  way 
Christianity  was  endangered  by  the  influence  of  Jewish 
principles  as  distinguished  from  Jewish  foi-ms/^  And  Hilgen- 
feld  supposes  he  can  discover  especial  reference  to  Gnostic 
teachers''.  The  exact  state  of  the  matter  we  shall  leave 
our  readers  to  judge  from  the  exposition  which  we  give  of 
his  theolog-y. 

Perhaps  nothing-  could  more  completely  show  the  immense 
difiPerence  between  ancient  Christian  feeling-  and  modern  than 
the  respect  in  which  ancient  and  most  modern  Christians  hold 
this  work.  We  have  seen  that  Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome  thought  very  highly  of  the 
work ;  the  three  earliest  speaking-  of  it  as  inspired,  and  the  two 
later  evidently  very  much  inclined  to  that  opinion.  We  have 
not  room  for  the  many  depreciatory  opinions  which  have  been 
expressed  in  modern  times.  We  take  two  of  the  latest. 
Stoughton  says  of  it  that  it  conveys  an  impression  anything 
but  favoxirable  to  the  churches  that  adopted  it.  "  It  has 
some  poetry,  but  more  childishness.""^  "  Compare  Bunyan  with 
Hermas,  and  the  manliness  of  popular  puritan  thought  in 
the  seventeenth  century  appears  in  enviable  contrast  with 
the  puerility  of  popular  catholic  thought  in  the  second  and 
thirds"  Bunsen^,  on  the  other  hand,  has  well  shown  its  true 
religious  spirit  and  its  high  value  as  a  help  to  the  Christian, 
though  he  seems  to  me  to  have  gone  too  far  in  comparing  it 
with  Dante^s  Divina  Commedia  and  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Pro- 
gress, as  he  had  formerly  been  too  niggardly  of  praise  in 
calling  it  "  a  good  but  dull  novel  ®." 

«  Altkath.  Kirche,  p.  529.  a  History  of  the  Canon,  p.  220. 

I'  Apost.  Viiter,  p.  177.  c  Ages  of  Christendom,  pp.  132,  133. 

d  Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  i   pp.  182,  183. 

*  Hippolytus,  first  ed.  vol.  i.  p.  315. 


■_>70  THE    APOSTULWAL    FATUKliS.  [Ciiak 

The  Pastor  of  Hermas  has  generally  been  reckoned 
among  apocalyptic  works.  It  differs,  however,  entirely  in 
this  respect,  that  it  does  not  profess  to  reveal  the  future. 
All  its  visions  and  similitudes  are  expounded;  and,  in  fact, 
its  visions  are  generally  similitudes :  so  that  the  book  is, 
properly  speaking,  a  book  of  parables.  So  far  is  the  writer 
from  making  pretence  to  oracular  wisdom,  that  oftener 
than  once  he  expresses  his  doubts.  He  says,  for  instance, 
he  does  not  know  whether  a  person  who  denies  the  Lord 
from  his  heart  will  obtain  life^.  At  the  same  time,  the 
machinery  of  the  work  is  apocalyptic,  and  Jachmanng  has 
endeavoured  to  trace  some  of  the  conceptions  of  Hermas 
to  other  apocalyptic  literature.  He  fails  entirely  in  sub- 
stantiating anj^  imitation  of  Daniel  or  the  Apocalypse  of  John, 
but  is  successful  in  establishing  a  similarity  in  some  respects 
between  it  and  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra. 

The  object  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  is  to  urge  those  Chris- 
tians who  had  turned  away  from  God  to  return  and  repent. 
Some  have  supposed  that  Hermas  desired  especially  to  fortify 
the  Christians  for  the  coming  persecution  or  tribulation  which 
he  mentions,  and  no  doubt  the  prospect  of  such  an  event 
would  be  an  urgent  reason  for  writing.  But  there  is  no 
proof  that  this  was  the  circumstance  that  gave  rise  to  the  work. 

Dorner  sees  also  in  the  work  an  ethical  representation  of 
the  church  in  opposition  to  the  liturgical  and  episcopal  l^,  but 
the  proofs  he  adduces  are  utter  failures.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  proof  that  Hermas  thought  of  the  cluu-ch  in  any  other 
way  than  as  it  is  thought  of  in  the  New  Testament — the 
ag'gregate  of  those  who  love  Christ,  the  body  of  Christ.  No 
doubt  in  the  time  of  Hermas  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles  there  were  men  too  eager  to  have  the  pre-eminence,  and 
there  must  have  been  some  overseers  who  did  not  attend  to 

f  Sim.  ix,  26. 

?  Der  Hirte  des  Hermas,  von  Dr.  K.  K.  Jacbmann,  Kiinigsberg  i8>5,  p.  56. 
This  is  the  only  good  monograph  on  Hennas,  though  it  is  far  from  perfect. 
There  is  a  small  commentatio  by  Gratz,  which  contains  nothing  of  any 
value. 

'•  Entwicklungslehre,  vol.  i.  p.  1S6. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR   OF  IIERMAS.  271 

themselves  and  their  flock  as  they  ought  to  have  done.  But 
there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  the  church  had  in  any 
deg-ree  turned  from  Christ  to  place  faith  in  its  own  officers. 
The  passages  appealed  to  by  Dorner  are,  one  in  which  those 
who  hold  the  first  seats  are  mentioned,  and  several  in  which 
the  chair  is  mentioned.  The  first  is  as  follows  :  "  Now  I  say 
to  you  who  preside  over  the  church  and  love  the  first  seats ', 
do  not  become  like  evil-doers  (quacks).  For  quacks  carry 
their  poisons  in  boxes,  but  you  keep  your  poisons  in  the 
heart,  and  ye  mil  not  purge  your  own  hearts  ^."  Here 
Hermas  simph'^  urges  presidents  of  the  churches  to  be  holy 
men,  men  full  of  instruction  and  at  peace  with  each  other, 
but  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  hierarchical  practices. 
Of  the  other  set  of  passages  the  following  will  suffice  :  "  Since 
every  infirm  person  sits  on  a  chair  on  account  of  his  infir- 
mity ^.^^  Here  Dorner  supposes  an  attack  upon  the  chair 
of  the  elder,  and  draws  his  inferences  accordingly.  It  would 
be  easy  to  show  how  strongly  the  context  of  several  of  these 
passages  speaks  against  the  notion  of  hierarchy  in  the  church, 
but  it  is  not  worth  while. 

The  book  is  a  very  interesting  one.  It  has  indeed  been 
pronounced  by  many  a  very  silly  and  worthless  production. 
And  this  much  may  be  allowed,  that  its  ai-tistic  merit  is  not 
great.  But  even  in  this  respect  it  is  not  so  utterly  contemp- 
tible as  it  has  been  declared  to  be.  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Pro- 
gress would  no  doubt  look  a  very  absurd  affair  if  it  had  been 
written  in  Latin  and  criticised  by  Latin  critics.  Every  alle- 
gory must  have  a  good  deal  of  useless  matter  in  it,  as  a  large 
part  of  it  is  illustration  and  not  statement,  and  so  it  wordd 
be  disagreeable  to  the  tastes  of  some  critics.  In  the  Pastor  the 
allegories  and  visions  are  on  the  whole  well  conducted ;  they 
are  occasionally  perhaps  too  minute.  But  this  is  the  only 
objection  that  can  be  brought  against  them.  And  apart  from 
this  merely  allegorical  wrapping,  the  matter  is  full  of  true 
thought  and  deep  religious  feeling.  Its  morality  is  always 
right,  and  it  presses  its  views  with  an  earnestness  that  would 

'  Tlie  Greek  has  wpoDToKaOfSp'nais.  k   V^is.  iii.  9.  1   Ibid.  11. 


•27-2  THK    A  I'O^TOLICAL    FA  THE  US.         [('map. 

fix  the  attention  and  eng-ag-e  the  heart  of  the  man  of  the 
second  century.  And  it  did  fix  liis  attention,  as  we  have  seen 
in  looking"  at  our  ancient  authorities. 

The  book  oug-ht  to  derive  a  peculiar  interest  from  its  being" 
the  first  work  extant,  the  main  effort  of  whicli  is  to  direct  the 
soul  to  God.  The  other  relig-ious  books  relate  to  internal  work- 
ings in  the  Church — this  alone  specially  deals  with  the  great 
chang'e  reqiiisite  to  living*  to  God.  It  is  indeed  intended  for 
the  servant  of  God  who  has  g-rown  cold  in  his  attachment  to 
his  master,  but  its  representations  of  truth  are  applicable  to 
all  living"  to  God.  It  may  disappoint  the  modern  theologian. 
Its  creed  is  a  very  short  and  simple  one.  Its  great  object 
is  to  exhibit  the  morality  implied  in  conversion.  And  in 
the  Similitudes  it  exhibits  the  dangers  which  lie  in  wait  for 
those  who  are  urged  to  put  their  faith  in  God.  It  discrimi- 
nates character  and  circumstances  successfully,  and  it  is  well 
calculated  to  awaken  the  Christian  to  a  true  sense  of  the 
spiritual  foes  that  are  ever  ready  to  assail  him. 

The  whole  style  and  tone  of  the  book  are  directly  opposed 
to  modern  theology.  The  writer's  doctrine  with  regard  to 
angels  and  demons,  and  his  great  freedom  from  dogmatic 
exposition,  are  perhaps  the  most  marked  features  of  the  work. 
And  even  his  sentiments  would  fail  sometimes  to  awaken 
a  response  in  some  modern  Christians.  He  pronounces  sad- 
ness a  sin,  a  most  dangerous  foe  of  the  Christian.  He  speaks 
of  the  sad  man  in  terms  of  the  strongest  reprobation.  He 
allows  indeed  that  some  people  have  just  reason  to  be  sad; 
but  then  this  sadness  is  to  be  viewed  as  a  temporary  evil, 
the  temporary  scaffolding  wliile  the  work  of  ujibuilding  is 
going  on.     As  a  persistent  thing  he  condemns  it  utterly. 

II.    ABSTRACT. 

The  Pastor  of  Hermas  is  now  divided  into  three  books — 
Visions,  Commands,  and  Similitudes.  The  manuscripts  are 
not  divided  at  all. 

Vision  I.  The  person  who  brought  him  up  sold  him  in  Rome 
to  a  woman  (Pal.),  or  sold  a  girl  at  Rome  (Vat.)     After  a  long 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   IIERMAS.  2/3 

time  he  became  well  acquainted  with  her^  and  loved  her  as 
a  sister'.  And  one  time  when  she  was  bathinf*'  in  the  rivei* 
Tiber,  he  stretched  o\it  his  hand  to  her  and  took  her  out. 
Then  he  beg-an  to  think  of  her  beauty  and  g-oodness,  and 
wished  she  were  his  wife.  As  he  was  thus  thinking-,  he  came 
to  Ostia,  and  while  walking  fell  asleep.  Then  the  Spirit 
carried  him  away  over  an  impassable  road,  and  then  he  crossed 
a  river,  g-ot  to  even  ground,  and  began  to  pray.  At  his 
prayer  the  heavens  were  opened,  and  he  saw  the  woman  whom 
he  loyed  saluting  him  from  heaven.  She  told  him  she  was 
there  to  accuse  him  of  his  sins  before  God.  He  did  not  know 
what  sin  it  was,  but  she  tells  him  that  he  had  conceived  a 
desire  for  her,  and  that  this  was  sinful.  Then  the  heavens 
were  shut  again  ;  and  Hermas  Avas  sad  at  heart,  and  asked 
himself  how  he  could  be  saved.  While  in  this  state  he  is 
accosted  by  an  elderly  woman  in  a  splendid  robe,  seated  in 
a  snow-white  chair.  She  tells  him  that  God  is  angry  with 
him,  not  on  account  of  his  own  sin,  but  on  account  of  the 
sins  which  his  sons  have  committed,  and  because  he  himself, 
on  account  of  their  follies,  has  l^ecome  involved  in  worldly 
affairs.  Then  she  read  to  him  out  of  a  book,  some  things 
in  it  being  terrible,  and  the  conclusion  more  agreeable.  Four 
young  men  then  take  the  chair  to  the  east,  and  two  men 
appear  and  carry  the  old  woman  to  the  chair  in  the  east, 
after  the  woman  has  explained  to  Hermas  that  the  terrible 
things  are  for  deserters  and  Gentiles,  and  the  agreeable  things 
for  the  just. 

Vision  II.  Wliile  journeying  in  the  district  of  Cumse, 
Hermas  remembers  the  vision  he  had  a  year  before.  Then 
the  Spirit  carries  him  away  to  the  same  place  as  that  to  which 
the  Spirit  had  formerly  conyeyed  him.  And  then  he  sees 
the  old  woman  reading  a  book.  He  asks  permission  to  tran- 
scribe it,  on  getting  which  he  copies  it,  letter  by  letter,  but 
without  making-  out  a  sinale  word  of  it.     Then  it  is  snatched 

'  The  first  few  sentences  leave  much  to  the  reader's  powers  of  conjecture. 
Both  Hilgenfeld  and  Bunsen  try  to  fill  the  story  up.     See  their  abstracts, 
Apostolische  Viiter,  p.  129,  and  Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  i.  p.  185. 
VOL.   I.  T 


274  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

from  him  by  some  one,  he  docs  not  know  who.  Fifteen  days 
after  the  meaning-  is  explained  to  him.  The  writing  informs 
him  of  the  sins  of  his  children  and  wife,  and  of  their  oppor- 
tnnity  of  repentance,  and  asks  him  to  tell  the  presidents  of 
the  church  to  persevere  in  acting  rig-hteously.  Then  a  beau- 
tiful youno-  man  appears  to  him,  and  tells  him  that  the  old 
woman  who  g-ave  him  the  book  was  the  Church.  Then  in 
his  own  house  the  elderly  woman  appears  to  him,  and  asks 
him  to  write  two  books,  one  for  Clement  and  another  for 
Grapte.  And  he  himself  is  to  announce  the  contents  of  the 
book  to  the  elders  of  the  Church. 

Vision  III.  presented  to  Hermas  "  a  great  tower  built  upon 
water,  with  shining  squared  stones.^'  The  tower  was  built 
square  by  the  six  young  men  who  had  come  along  with  the 
elderly  woman  that  made  the  rcA'clations  to  Hermas.  Another 
multitude  of  men  were  transferring  stones,  some  from  the 
lowest  depths  of  the  foundations,  others  from  the  earth, 
and  were  handing  them  to  the  six  men,  who  on  receiving 
them  continued  to  build  with  them.  The  strong  stones  and 
those  that  were  taken  out  from  the  foundation,  were  put 
just  as  they  were  into  the  bxiilding,  for  they  all  fitted  each 
other,  and  the  building  made  from  them  looked  like  one 
stone.  Of  the  stones  that  were  taken  from  the  eai'th  some 
were  rejected,  some  were  put  into  the  building,  and  some  were 
cut  down  and  cast  away  far  from  the  tower.  Some  of  them 
also  la}'^  round  the  tower  unused,  because  they  had  cracks 
or  were  otherwise  unsuitable.  Some  of  the  stones  cast  away 
far  from  the  tower  were  rolled  into  a  desert  place,  others  fell 
into  the  fire,  but  covild  not  be  rolled  into  the  water. 

The  elderly  woman  explains  the  meaning  of  this  vision. 
The  tower  is  the  Church.  The  tower  is  built  on  water,  be- 
cause "  your  life  has  been  and  will  be  saved  through  water." 
The  six  young  men  are  six  angels  who  were  created  first, 
and  those  engaged  in  transferring  the  stones  were  also  angels, 
but  of  an  inferior  grade.  The  stones  are  human  beings.  The 
exactly-fitting  stones  are  apostles  and  teachers  who  have 
lived  or  live  blameless    holy  lives.      Those  taken  from  the 


v.]  THE   PASTOR    OF  IIEinfAS.  275 

foundations  are  the  sulforers  for  Christ.  The  other  stones  are 
explained  in  a  siniiUir  way.  When  he  is  satisfied  with  the 
exphination  of  these,  the  elderly  woman  presents  to  his  view 
seven  women.  These  are  Faith,  Self-restraint,  Simplicity,  \w- 
noeenee.  Moderation,  Knowledge,  and  Love.  She  points  out 
to  him  the  connexion  between  these,  and  commissions  him  to 
proclaim  to  the  saints' certain  words  which  she  speaks  to  him. 
He  then  asks  how  she  had  appeared  to  him  in  three  diiferent 
forms — in  the  first  vision  as  an  old  woman ;  in  the  second 
with  the  face  of  a  young-  woman,  but  with  the  body  and  hair 
of  an  old  woman  ;  in  the  third,  entirely  as  a  young  woman 
with  the  exception  of  her  hair.  He  is  informed  by  a  young' 
man  that  these  various  appearances  corresponded  to  the  state 
of  his  mind ;  that  the  first  vision  came  to  him  when  he  was 
vexed  by  worldly  atTairs,  the  second  came  after  he  had  been 
gladdened  by  the  first,  and  the  last  when  his  joy  was  still 
fuller. 

Vision  IV.  Hermas  sees  an  immense  animal,  from  whose  mouth 
fiery  locusts  proceeded,  and  which  had  on  its  head  four  colours. 
Through  faith  in  God  he  is  enabled  to  meet  this  monster 
without  fear.  The  Church  comes  to  him  in  the  shape  of  a 
virgin  in  bridal  dress,  and  tells  him  that  the  beast  means 
great  coming  tribulation,  and  that  only  those  whose  faith  is 
wavering  have  any  cause  to  fear.  The  Church  also  explains 
the  meaning  of  the  four  colours.  The  black  is  the  world; 
the  ruddy  and  bloody  intimate  that  the  world  must  perish  l)y 
blood  and  fire;  the  golden  are  the  faithful  who  have  fled  from 
this  age ;  and  the  white  is  the  pure  world  in  which  the  elect 
of  God  shall  dwell  after  the}'  have  been  purified  through  the 
trials  and  fire  of  this  age. 

This  vision  concludes  book  first.  Book  second  contains 
twelve  commandments  or  commissions  which  Hermas  receives 
from  a  pastor  of  repentance.  After  he  had  prayed  and  sat  on 
his  couch,  a  man  of  reverend  look,  dressed  like  a  shepherd, 
clothed  with  a  white  skin,  carrjdng  a  wallet  on  his  shoulders  and 
a  staff  in  his  hand,  came  up  to  him  and  saluted  him.  This  is 
the  angel  or  messenger  of  repentance  appointed  to  Hermas. 

T  a 


•2:i\  Tin-:   APU^'STOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

The  first  coniniiiiul  he  g'ives  is  to  believe  in  one  God.  The 
second  command  inculoivtes  childlike  simplicity  of  heart,  and 
forbids  most  strong-ly  the  listeninj^  to  or  believing"  any  one 
who  slanders  anotlier.  It  also  inculcates  lii)erality.  The 
liberality  it  inculcates  seems  almost  to  be  indiscriminate  ;  for, 
according-  to  it,  a  person  cannot  be  wrong-  in  giving-.  If  the 
recipient  takes  charity  compelled  by  necessity,  he  is  free  from 
all  crime;  but  if  a  person  g-ets  it  on  false  pretences,  he  will 
have  to  account  for  it  to  God.  The  g-iver  has  nothing-  to  do 
with  the  matter. 

Command  third  inculcates  the  love  of  truth,  and  the  obli- 
gation to  speak  the  truth.  God  is  truthful  in  everything, 
and  God  gave  man  a  spirit  free  from  all  lying.  They  there- 
fore who  make  this  spirit  a  lying  spirit  are  answerable  to 
God  for  such  a  deed. 

Command  fourth  inculcates  chastity  and  the  avoidance  of 
even  the  thought  or  mention  of  adultery.  Hermas  takes 
occasion  to  ask  the  angel  about  certain  difficult  questions 
relating  to  marriage  :  as,  whether  a  man  ought  to  keep  a 
wife  convicted  of  adultery  ?  if  he  is  permitted  to  marry 
while  the  other  dismissed  wife  is  alive  ?  if  he  ought  ever 
to  receive  the  wife  back  on  her  exhibiting  signs  of  repentance  ? 
This  leads  to  a  discussion  with  regard  to  the  possibility  of 
repentance  in  Christians,  and  the  command  concludes  with 
an  answer  to  the  question.  Whether,  when  a  husband  or  a 
wife  has  died,  the  survivor  can  n>arry  without  sin  ? 

Command  fifth  urges  the  necessity  of  patience  and  ab- 
stinence from  all  anger.  If  a  man  is  patient  and  long-suffer- 
ing, then  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  w^thin  him  will  not  be 
darkened  by  any  evil  spirit;  but  if  he  gives  way  to  anger, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  being  tender,  will  go  away,  while  evil  spirits 
will  enter  in  great  numbers. 

Command  sixth  states  that  there  are  two  ways  open  for 
a  man,  the  way  of  righteousness  and  the  way  of  wickedness ; 
and  that  each  man  has  two  angels  with  him,  an  angel  of 
righteousness  and  an  ang'cl  of  wnckedness.  If  he  feels  in- 
clined to  be  holy,  he  may  know  then  that  the  angel  of  good- 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF  IIERMAS.  277 

noss  is  with  him  ;  if  lie  has  evil  sug-gestions,  then  the  angel 
of  wickedness  is  in  him.  He  is  to  avoid  tlie  hittev,  and  to 
repose  in  the  good  angel,  and  walk  in  the  way  of  righteous- 
ness. 

Command  seventh  inenlcates  the  fear  of  God.  The  devil 
is  not  to  be  feared.  His  works  are  to  be  feared  and  avoided. 
All  nature  fears  God,  and  they  who  fear  Him  will  live  for 
ever. 

Command  eighth  affirms  that  we  must  abstain  from  some 
things  and  not  abstain  from  others.  We  must  abstain  from 
evil.  Then  the  writer  names  expressly  uhat  evils  he  means. 
And  we  must  not  abstain  from  good,  but  do  it.  And  then 
the  writer  points  out  what  good  things  ought  to  be  done. 

Command  ninth  urges  the  necessity  of  faith  to  him  who  prays. 
Doubt  is  the  daughter  of  the  devil,  and  accomplishes  nothing; 
faith  comes  from  God,  and  has  great  power. 

Command  tenth  affirms  that  sadness  is  the  sister  of  doubt, 
mistrust,  and  wrath  ;  that  it  is  worse  than  all  other  wicked 
spirits,  and  grieves  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  therefore  to  be 
completely  driven  away,  and  instead  of  it  we  are  to  put  on 
cheerfulness,  which  is  pleasing  to  God.  "  Every  cheerful  man 
works  well,  and  always  thinks  those  things  which  are  good, 
and  despises  sadness.  The  sad  man,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
always  bad." 

Command  the  eleventh  describes  the  true  prophet  and  th.e 
false ;  the  Holy  Spirit  that  is  within  the  one,  and  the  empty, 
earthly,  reward-loving  spirit  which  is  within  the  other.  It 
urges  adhesion  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  avoidance  of  the  earthly, 
and  sets  down  as  a  criterion  the  acts  and  company  of  each. 

Command  twelfth  commands  Hermas  to  abstain  from  every 
evil  desire.  It  explains  what  is  included  under  the  term  evil 
desire,  and  asserts  that  evil  desires  come  from  the  devil.  He 
is  therefore  to  resist  them,  armed  with  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  clothe  himself  with  the  desire  of  justice. 

The  twelve  commands  being  concluded,  the  angel  of  re- 
pentance exhorts  Hermas  to  walk  in  them.  He  lunvever 
rejoins,  that  this  is  impossililc.     The  angel  replies,  that  such 


278  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

a  notion  must  be  drivL-n  away  ;  that  tliose  who  are  full  of 
faith  and  j)urily  tlieir  liearts  need  have  no  fear  of  tlie  devil, 
and  will  without  fail  keej)  these  commands.  The  devil  gets 
the  victory  only  over  those  who  are  wavering-  in  their  faith. 

The  third  book  consists  of  ten  similitudes. 

Siiiiil.  1.  g-ives  no  comparison.  It  states  that  the  servants 
of  God  are  pilgrims  in  this  world,  and  it  exhibits  the  folly  of 
those  who  spend  their  time  in  adding-  to  their  riches  and 
lands,  and  g'iving-  themselves  up  to  the  laws  of  this  world, 
when  they  ought  to  be  doing  the  work  of  God  and  obeying 
the  law  of  that  heavenly  city  to  Avhich  they  profess  to  be 
bound. 

Simil.  11.  While  Hermas  was  walking  in  the  fields  he  began 
thinking  of  the  vine  and  the  elm.  The  pastor  came  to  him  and 
showed  that  the  junction  of  these  two  was  like  the  junction 
of  the  rich  and  the  poor  in  the  Church.  The  elm  does  not 
bear  fruit,  but  it  supports  the  vine,  which,  thus  supported, 
produces  abundant  fruit.  So  the  rich  man  is  needy  tow^ards 
God,  but  he  helps  the  necessities  of  the  poor  man  who  is 
rich  in  grace,  and  w^hose  i^rajers  are  powerful  in  behalf  of 
his  rich  helper. 

Simil.  III.  As  in  winter  living  trees  and  dead  trees  cannot 
be  distinguished,  so  in  this  age,  which  is  the  winter  to  the 
just,  the  just  cannot  be  distinguished  from  the  unjust, 

Simil.  IV.  As  in  summer  there  are  trees  which  are  seen 
to  bear  fruit  and  other  trees  which  are  withered  and  fruitless, 
so  in  the  age  to  come  the  fruits  of  the  just  man  \\\\\  be  mani- 
fested, and  all  the  just  will  be  glad,  but  sinners  will  be 
burned. 

Simil.  v.  While  Hermas  is  fasting  the  pastor  asks  him  why 
he  has  come  so  early  in  the  morning.  Hermas  replies  that 
he  is  fasting.  The  pastor  informs  him  that  he  is  not  keeping 
a  right  fast,  and  adds  the  following  similitude.  A  certain 
possessor  of  vineyards  went  away  for  a  time  from  his  posses- 
sions, leaving  them  in  charge  of  a  servant,  to  whom  he  gave 
the  one  injunction  to  attach  the  vines  to  stakes.  The  servant 
did  this,  but  seeing  the  vines  like  to  be  choked  with  weeds. 


V.J  TH£    PAiSTOR    OF  HERMAS.  L>7i> 

he  also  pulliHl  them  out.  When  the  master  returned  he  was 
much  gratilied  to  see  that  the  servant  had  done  more  than 
he  had  been  ordered  to  do,  and  so  he  called  tog-ether  his  son 
and  friends  and  proposed  to  them  to  make  the  servant  fellow- 
heir  with  his  son.  They  assented.  A  few  days  after  the 
proprietor  held  a  feast,  and  sent  a  large  supply  of  food  to  the 
trusty  servant.  He  divided  it  among'  his  fellow-servants. 
On  this  the  proprietor  again  called  his  son  and  friends  to- 
gether, and  they  still  more  urgently  entreated  that  he  should 
be  made  a  fellow-heir.  The  explanation  is :  the  proprietor 
is  God.  The  servant  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  vineyard  is  the 
people.  The  stakes  are  angels  appointed  to  restrain  the 
people  of  God.  The  weeds  are  the  sins  of  God's  servants. 
The  food  sent  from  the  table  is  God's  commands.  The  friends 
are  the  angels  that  were  first  created. 

Simil.  VI.  Hernias  g-oes  along  with  the  shepherd  of  repent- 
ance into  a  field,  where  he  sees  a  youthful  shepherd  taking* 
care  of  numerous  cattle  that  sported  in  great  delight.  There 
were  two  classes  of  cattle ;  the  one  very  joyful,  and  the  other 
simply  feeding.  On  advancing  a  little  he  saw  another 
shepherd,  tall  and  fierce,  with  a  whip  in  his  hand.  He  led 
the  second  class  of  cattle  into  a  steep  place  full  of  thorns  and 
briars,  where  they  were  greatly  tormented.  The  youthful 
shepherd  is  the  angel  of  pleasure.  The  cattle  are  the  lovers 
of  pleasure ;  the  first  class  being  those  who  are  wholly  given 
over  to  death,  and  foi'  whom  there  is  no  hope  of  repentance ; 
the  second,  those  who  have  been  led  astray  into  pleasure,  but 
who  are  brought  back  by  the  stern  angel  of  punishment 
through  the  providential  dealings  of  God  with  them.  Then 
they  are  delivei'cd  over  to  the  angel  of  repentance  with  whom 
Hermas  was  walking. 

Simil.  VII.  A  few  days  after  Hermas  meets  the  pastor  in 
the  same  plain  in  which  he  had  seen  the  other  shejjherds, 
and  asks  him  to  order  the  shepherd  that  presided  over  punish- 
ment to  depart  from  his  house.  He  is  told  that  the  shepherd 
of  punishment  cannot  yet  depart ;  that  he  remains  for  the  sake 
of  the  family  of  Hermas  who  are  afflicted  in  his  affliction, 


280  THE    APOSTOLICAL   FA  THE  US.         [Chap. 

but  that  the  afiHetion  will  not  be  severe.  Meantime  he  and 
they  are  to  walk  in  God's  cominandinents. 

Simi/.  viir.  The  pastor  shows  Herrnas  a  larjj^e  willow,  cover- 
ing- plains  and  hills,  under  the  shadow  of  which  came  all  who 
were  called  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Then  a  mig-hty  angel 
cut  down  with  a  pruning"-hook  branches  from  the  tree,  and 
the  ]ieople  under  the  shadow  received  little  twig-s.  Notwith- 
standing" the  cuttings  the  tree  remained  whole.  Then  the 
angel  demanded  the  twigs  back  again,  and  examined  them. 
Some  were  utterly  rotten,  some  were  dry,  some  were  green 
but  had  cracks,  some  were  half-dry ;  in  fact,  there  was  every 
variety.  The  people  were  then  arranged  into  classes  accord- 
ing to  their  twigs,  and  those  who  had  g-recn  and  fruit-bearing 
twigs  were  crowned.  Then  the  pastor  of  repentance  took 
the  twigs  of  the  others  and  planted  them,  and  after  several 
days  he  found  some  of  the  dry  had  become  green,  and  changes, 
either  for  the  better  or  worse,  had  come  overall.  The  willow- 
tree  is  the  law  of  God;  namely,  the  Son  of  God,  who  has  been 
preached  over  the  whole  earth.  The  angel  is  Michael.  The 
people  under  the  shadow  are  those  who  hear  the  good  news, 
and  the  twigs  represent  the  effects  produced  by  the  preaching 
and  the  characters  of  the  individuals. 

S'mn/.  IX.  The  ninth  similitude  is  a  fuller  description  of  the 
Church.  Bunsen  makes  it  the  commencement  of  the  third 
book ;  the  second  book  consisting  of  the  Mandates  and  the 
other  Similitudes.  The  pastor  comes  to  Hermas  again  and 
takes  him  up  to  the  summit  of  a  mountain  in  Arcadia.  There 
he  saw  a  great  plain  surrounded  by  twelve  mountains  of 
various  characters.  One  was  black  as  smoke,  the  second  had 
no  vegetation,  the  third  was  full  of  thorns,  and  the  others 
were  equally  characteristic ;  the  twelfth  being  all  white  and 
most  delightful  to  look  at.  Then  a  large  white  rock  was 
shown  him,  rising  I'rom  the  plain,  square  and  higher  than  the 
mountains.  This  rock  had  a  new  gate,  around  which  stood 
twelve  virgins,  four  of  whom  seemed  to  be  higher  in  dignity 
than  the  others.  Then  he  saw  six  men  come  and  call  a  great 
multitude  of  men  to  build  upon  the  rock,  and  the  virgins 


v.]  THE   PAST  OK    OF  HE  KM  AS.  281 

handed  the  stones  to  them  through  the  gate.  The  Similitude 
enters  into  numerous  details  \vith  regard  to  the  various  kinds 
of  stones  and  their  apju-obation  or  rejection.  Then  came  a 
man  of  great  size  and  examined  the  stones ;  rejecting  some, 
and  handing  them  over  to  the  pastor  of  repentance.  After 
a  short  time  the  pastor  goes  round  with  Hermas,  and  finds 
the  whole  structure  as  of  one  stone  and  all  right,  then  leaves 
Hermas  hehind  him  with  the  virgins.  The  rock  and  the  gate 
are  the  Sou  of  Godj  the  virgins  are  holy  spirits,  such  as 
Faith  and  Self-restraint ;  the  six  men  are  angels.  The  tower 
is  the  Church.  And  the  mountains  are  the  various  classes  of 
men  who  compose  the  Church.  The  Similitude  enters  fully 
into  a  description  of  these  various  classes.  The  man  of  great 
size  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  comes  to  look  after  the  building 
of  the  Church. 

Simil.  X.  The  angel  who  had  handed  him  over  to  the 
pastor  of  repentance  comes  to  him  along  with  the  pastor, 
and  addresses  earnest  exhortations  to  him  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  the  pastor  and  to  proclaim  them  to  all.  He 
urges  him  also  to  keep  the  virgins  ever  in  his  house,  a  thing 
which  he  can  do  only  by  keeping  his  house  pure.  After 
a  few  remarks  of  a  similar  nature,  he  rose  from  the  couch 
and  went  away  with  the  pastor  and  the  virgins,  saying  that  he 
would  send  them  back  ajrain  to  his  house. 


III.    THE    DOCTRINES    OF  HERMAS. 

Almost  all  the  dogmatic  statements  in  the  Pastor  of  Her- 
mas are  made  in  connexion  ^^dth  their  moral  effect  on  man. 
There  is,  however,  more  of  the  speculative,  and  at  least  more 
of  the  distinctly-pronounced  dogma  in  it  than  in  the  other 
writings  of  the  same  age. 

God. — The  first  Command  commands  us  to  "  believe  first 
of  all  that  there  is  one  God,  who  created  and  perfected  all 
things,  and  made  all  things  out  of  nothing.  He  alone  con- 
tains  the   whole  of  things,  is  immeasurable,  and  cannot  be 


'2S2  TH E  APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

(lofiiu'd  in  words  nor  conceived  with  the  mind™."  He  is 
IVequently  spoken  of  as  tlie  God  who  made  all  thing's  out  of 
nothing',  and  as  possessed  of  all  power  and  all  knowledge". 
It  is  He  that  has  communicated  to  all  things  the  virtues 
they  possess".  ]\lan  is  bound  to  fear  Him,  for  He  can  save 
and  destro}  P.  But  Hermas  advances  far  beyond  the  mere 
physical  idea  of  infinite  power.  He  descril)es  God's  cha- 
racter. He  is  the  God  of  truths ;  He  is  full  of  mercy'; 
He  is  kind  as  well  to  the  wicked  as  to  the  good*;  He  is 
faithful  in  his  promises';  forgetful  of  injuries";  ready  to  hear 
and  answer  prayer :  and  so  his  servants  are  bound  to  fear 
Him  ;  to  walk  justly ;  to  love  the  truth  ;  to  love  their 
enemies ;  to  put  their  faith  in  Him  "^ ;  to  ask  Him  unhesi- 
tatingly for  spiritual  blessingsy;  and,  in  one  word,  to  live 
to  God.  This  "living  to  God"  is  a  mode  of  expression 
continually  used  in  the  work  as  equivalent  to  a  completely 
holy  life. 

God  is  represented,  however,  as  angry  with  sin  ;  Init  then 
the  statement  is  made  that  "  God  who  rules  all  things,  and 
has  power  over  all  His  creation,  does  not  wish  to  remember 
offences,  but  is  easily  pacified  by  those  who  confess  their  sins^." 
And,  accordingly,  the  readers  are  urged  to  turn  to  the  Lord 
with  all  their  heart,  and  serve  Him  according  to  His  will, 
and  then  He  will  give  a  remedy  to  their  souls,  placing  behind 
Him  all  their  sins,  and  they  will  have  power  to  rule  over  the 
works  of  the  devil*.  The  Lord  is,  consequently,  ever  ready  to 
pardon  sins,  to  purge  away  sins*',  and  to  turn  his  anger  away 
from  those  who  trust  Him*=.  This  trust  comes  from  Himself. 
Faith  is  his  gift'';  so  is  repentance^.  The  people  of  God 
arc  chosen  by  Him^  He  dwells  in  them,  and  they  will  know 
all  things  s.     If  they  have  God  in  their  hearts,  they  will  keep 

"  Hand.  i.  "  Vis.  i.  i,  3  ;  iii.  3  ;  Mand.  iv.  3  ;  Sim.  v.  7  ;  i.x.  23. 

"  Sim.  V.  5.  I'  Mand.  xii.  6.  'i  Il>id.  iii.  >"  Vis.  i.  3  ;  iii.  9. 

*  Mand.  ii.  '  Proem.  Mand.  "  Mand.  ix.  '  Ibid.  .\ii.  3. 

>  Man),  ix.  '  Sim.  ix.  23.  «  Mand.  xii.  6.      ''  Vis.  i.  1,3. 

«  Vis.  iv.  2.  <i  Mand.  ix.  «  Vis.  iv.  1  ;  Sim.  i.\.  14. 

'  Vis.  i.  3  ;  ii.  I,  a.  p  Mand.  x.  2. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   HERMAS.  2h;j 

his  commandments  and  do  his  works,  and  be  uninjured  by  evil^^. 
But  God  is  sometimes  ang-rv  with  them^  and  He  sends  them 
temporal  calamities  as  punishments  for  their  forgetful ness  of 
Him'.  The  writer  attempts  no  conciliation  of  the  diverse 
statements  which  he  makes  with  reg-ard  to  God. 

Christ.  The  name  'Christ^  does  not  once  occur  in  the  book, 
and  little  is  said  of  Him  at  all.  He  is  always  spoken  of  as  the 
Son  of  God^.  He  is  "more  ancient  than  every  creature;  so 
that  He  was  present  in  counsel  with  his  Father  at  the  founding- 
of  creation  '."  The  name  of  the  Son  of  God  is  great  and  im- 
measurable, and  the  whole  world  is  sustained  by  Him™  [or  it]. 
He  appeared  in  the  world  in  the  last  times,  and  endured  great 
suffering  that  He  might  do  away  with  the  sins  of  his  people". 
He  at  the  same  time  pointed  out  to  them  the  ways  of  life, 
and  gave  them  the  law  which  He  had  received  from  his 
Father".  He  is  therefore  Lord  of  his  people,  having  received 
all  power  from  his  Father^.  He  is  the  rock  on  which  the 
Church  is  built,  and  the  only  gate  by  which  one  can  enter 
into  the  Church<J.  No  one  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  but  through  the  Son  who  is  most  dear  to  God.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Son  of  God  is  preached  throughout  the  nations  f. 
Those  who  deny  Him  in  this  world  shall  be  denied  by  Him 
in  the  next^.  On  the  completion  of  the  Church  the  Son  of 
God  will  rejoice,  and  will  receive  his  people  with  pure  will*. 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  passages  give  us  no  insight 
into  the  writer's  notion  of  the  relation  of  the  Son  of  God 
as  pre-existent  to  the  Son  of  God  as  incarnate.  He  speaks 
of  Him  as  one  and  the  same  being ;  and  there  is  nothing 
to  indicate  that  he  felt  any  particular  difficulty  in  so  thinking 
of  Him. 

The  relation  of  Christ  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  set  forth  by 
Hermas,  has  been  matter  of  keen  discussion.  In  Sim.  ix.  i 
the  messenger  of  repentance  comes  to  Hermas,  and   says, 

^  Mand.  xii.4.  '  Vis.  iii.  5,  6;  i.  1  ;  Sim.  vi.  3. 

^  Vi.s.  ii.  2  ;  Sim.  v.  5,  6  ;  viii.  3  ;  ix.  i,  &c.  '  Sim.  ix.  1  2. 

"•  Sim.  ix.  14.  "  Ibid.  V.  6.  "  Ibid.  n  Ibid. 

1  Sim.  ix.  12.  '  Ibid.  viii.  3  ;  ix.  17,         "  Vis.  ii.  2.         •  Sim.  ix.  18. 


■2H4  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATJIERS.         [Chap. 

"  I  wisli  to  show  thee  what  the  [Holy"]  Spirit  .showed,  who 
spoke  to  thee  in  the  imag-e  of  the  Church.  For  that  Spirit 
is  the  Son  of  God."  Here  we  have  simply  the  assertion  that 
Christ  is  a  [holy]  spirit — a  statement  made  in  the  New 
Testament'',  and  which  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  Hermas's 
use  of  the  word  '  sj)irit,^  as  we  shall  see.  Nor  is  there  any 
thin<^  unusual  in  the  i)assage,  "  All  your  seed  shall  dwell 
with  the  Son  of  God,  for  ye  are  all  of  his  spirity."  The 
'spirit  of  Christ^  is  also  a  New  Testament  expression.  The 
only  remainin<^  passage  is  one  of  great  difficulty ;  partly 
because  the  subject  itself  is  difficult,  partly  because  the  text 
is  corrupt,  partly  because  the  language  is  indefinite,  and 
partly  because,  occurring  in  the  midst  of  an  allegory,  we 
are  left  to  guess  some  portions  of  the  explanation.  The 
passage  occurs  in  the  fifth  Similitude,  an  abstract  of  which 
has  been  given  above.  In  the  explanation  of  the  Similitude 
we  have  in  the  common  translation,  but  not  in  the  Palatine 
or  Simonides,  the  words,  "  The  Son  is  the  Holy  Spirit^," 
This  can  mean  nothing  more  than  that  the  'son'  of  the 
Similitude  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  no  identification  here 
of  the  Sun  of  God  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  contrary', 
it  is  expressly  stated  tliat  the  Son  of  God  is  the  servant : 
and  hence  Hernias  must  have  regarded  the  Spirit  and  the 
Son  of  God  as  two  distinct  beings.  But  then,  what  is  the 
spirit,  and  what  is  his  relation  to  the  son  ?  Hermas's  words 
are  :  "  Hear  now,  why  God  employed  the  son  and  the  good 
angels  in  regard  to  the  inheritance.  That  holy  spirit  which 
was  infused  first  of  all,  God  placed  in  a  body  in  which  it 
might  dwell  ;  namely,  in  a  chosen  body,  as  seemed  good 
to  Him.  This  body  then  {aap^)  into  which  the  holy  spirit 
was  led,  obeyed  that  spirit,  walking  righteously  in  sobriety 
and  chastity,  and  did  not  stain  that  spirit.  Since,  therefore, 
that  body  had  always  obeyed  the  holy  spirit,  and  had 
laboured  with  him  righteously  and  chastely,  and  had  never 
given  May,  but  had    lived   bravely  with   the    spirit,    it   was 

"  '  Holy  '  occurs  in  the  Palatine  and  .^imonides,  not  in  the  common  trans- 
lation. 5^  2  Cor.  iii.  17.  18.  >    Sim.  ix.  24.  *  Ibid.  v.  5. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   HERMAS.  285 

approved  of  by  God,  and  received  [as  a  partaker,  Gr.]  with 
the  lioly  sj^ivit.  For  the  passage  of  this  body  (i.  e.  its  mode 
of  living")  pleased  God,  in  that  it  was  not  stained  on  eartli, 
possessing  the  holy  spirit  in  itself.  He  therefore  called  the 
son  and  g-ood  angels  into  his  counsels,  that  some  place  of 
habitation  might  l)e  to  this  body,  because  it  had  served  the 
holy  spirit  without  complaint,  lest  it  should  seem  to  have 
lost  the  reward  of  its  service.  For  every  body  will  receive  a 
reward  which  is  fovuid  pure  and  without  stain,  in  which  the 
holy  spirit  may  have  been  placed  to  dwell."  Then  the 
similitude  is  applied  to  Hermas  in  the  advice,  "  Keep  thy 
body  pure  and  clean,  that  that  spirit  which  dwells  in  thee 
may  render  testimony  to  it,  and  thy  body  be  saved*." 
Now  it  will  be  noticed  that  Hermas  does  not  once  speak  of 
the  body  or  the  flesh  mentioned  here  as  Christ's  body ;  and 
if  he  had  intended  this,  some  hint  of  it  would  have  been 
given.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  of  the  reward  coming 
to  every  pure  body.  The  doctrine  which  Hermas  seems  to 
teach  appears  to  be  somewhat  allied  to  that  of  Tatian.  God 
planted  within  man^s  flesh  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  that  Spirit 
be  retained,  then  man,  who  was  made  neither  mortal  nor 
immortal,  but  capable  of  both,  becomes  immortal.  And  this 
spirit  is  retained  by  purity  of  life,  especially  by  chastity. 
But  then,  how  does  this  fit  in  with  the  rest  of  the  parable  ? 
There  is  iinquestionably  a  difficulty  here,  but  a  difficulty  which 
we  are  not  bound  to  solve.  Hermas^s  words  evidently  mean 
what  I  have  stated,  and  as  he  has  not  deemed  it  necessary  to 
show  the  connexion  between  his  explanation  and  the  rest  of 
the  parable,  perhaps  it  was  because  he  had  no  definite  idea  of 
a  connexion.  If,  however,  we  apply  the  doctrine  to  the  body 
of  Christ,  as  representative  of  humanity,  the  connexion  might 
be — Christ's  body  was  kept  absolutely  pure.     Therefore  the 

»  I  have  translated  from  the  common  translation,  but  amending  according 
to  the  Palatine  and  Greek,  which  are  substantially  the  same  as  my  version, 
except  in  the  first  sentence.  There  the  Palatine  has,  "  The  Spirit  which 
was  created  pure  of  all "  (qui  creatus  est  omnium  purus),  evidently  for 
'  first  of  all.'  And  the  Greek  has,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  which  existed  before, 
which  created  all  creation,  God  settled  in  flesh  which  He  chose." 


2H)  TUK    APO,iTOLlCAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

spirit  was  called  in  to  testify  to  his  merits,  and  every  other 
body  that  is  kept  pure  will  have  similar  testimony  borne  to 
it.  Another  explanation  seems  to  me  more  likely.  The 
object  of  Christ's  mission,  as  it  is  stated  in  the  sixth  chapter, 
is  to  preserve  the  people  whom  God  had  given  to  Him. 
Who  could  best  bear  \vitness  to  this  fact  ?  The  Holy  Spirit 
w^ho  dwelt  in  the  bodies  of  those  who  were  pure  in  heart, 
and  the  g-ood  angels  who  attended  on  those  who  walked 
in  the  way  of  righteousness.  They  are  the  proper  witnesses 
to  the  facts  of  Christ's  work,  and  therefore  they  are  called  in 
to  give  their  advice  with  regard  to  the  reward  of  Christ  and 
his  people.  It  deserves  notice,  however,  that  the  writer  does 
not  say  what  is  meant  by  the  inheritance.  And  the  only 
reward  assig-ned  to  purity  of  body  is  a  locality  for  the  body ; 
or,  in  other  words,  Hermas  probably  meant  to  affirm  that  all 
who  remained  pure  would  rise  ag-ain  to  g'lory. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  g-ive  anjthing-  like  an  idea  of  the 
doctrines  which  have  been  supposed  to  be  hid  in'  this  ob- 
scure passag'e.  Bull  reg-arded  the  words  *'the  Son  is  the 
Spirit/'  as  applicable  to  Christ  in  respect  of  his  divine  nature, 
while  the  Mjody'  and  the  servant  indicated  his  human'^. 
Jachmann  applies  the  words  '  holy  spirit '  to  the  third  person 
of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  justly  remarking  that  the  times 
of  Hermas  knew  nothing-  of  a  distinction  of  natures.  The 
Tiibing'en  school  suppose  that  Hermas  reg-arded  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  hig-her  being  of  Christ,  and  that  he  knew 
nothing-  of  Christ's  pre-existence  but  'as  a  holy  spirit^/ 
and  Bunsen  has  g-iven  the  following  explanation :  "  This 
'  Son  of  God'  is  distinguished  as  '  the  Holy  Ghost,'  the 
'first  created,'  from  the  man  Jesus,  who  is  the  servant  of 
God^l.  The  Holy  Spirit  lived  in  Him,  and  it  was  in  con- 
sequence of  his  holy  life  and  death  that  the  'servant  of  God' 
was  made  partaker  of  God's  nature.  So,  to  a  certain  degree, 
is  every  faithful  believer.     But  that  holy  servant  of  God,  the 

b  Defens.  Fid.  Nicaen.  i.  2.  5  ;  ii.  2.  3. 

<^  See  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vater,  p.  166  :  Dorner,  Entwicklungslehre,  vol.  i. 
pp.  195  ff:  Jachmann,  p.  70.  '•  Sim.  v.  6. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   UERMAS.  287 

man  Jesus,  is  most  unequivocally  and  emphatically  called  in 
that  same  passage  the  '  Son  of  God/  The  Son  of  God  is 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  servant  is  the  Son  of  God^." 
He  expresses  the  idea  of  Hermas  in  his  own  words,  thus : 
"  The  difference  established  by  him  between  the  Eternal 
Spirit  and  the  man  Jesus  is,  that  the  one  is  the  infinite  con- 
sciousness of  God,  of  Himself,  and  of  the  world  ;  and  the 
other,  the  identical  image  of  that  consciousness  under  the 
limitations  of  the  finite  within  the  bonds  of  humanityf/^ 

Holy  Sjnrit. — It  may  be  matter  of  question  whether  Hermas 
makes  any  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  speaks  several 
times  of  the  holy  spirit,  but  his  mode  of  speaking"  is  so 
different  from  ours  that  we  are  at  a  loss  whether  to  identify 
his  opinion  with  any  modern  opinion.  His  work  abounds  in 
the  application  of  the  word  '  spirit,""  used  with  the  notion  of 
personality  to  the  passions  and  emotions  of  the  mind.  Thus 
evil  speaking  is  said  to  be  "  an  evil  spirit,  and  an  inconstant 
demon  [ttovtjpov  yap  TiV^Vfxd  ka-TLV  rj  KaTa\a\ia,  koI  aKardaTaToi/ 
baifxoviov),  never  at  peace,  but  always  dwelling  in  quarrelsS.'^ 
And  in  like  manner  '  douljt '  is  said  to  be  "  an  earthly  spirit 
proceeding  from  the  devil^i.'^  This  hjqDostatizing  of  the  pas- 
sions into  spirits  is  still  farther  illustrated  by  a  passage  in 
Sim.  ix.  13-15-  There  certain  virgins  are  introduced,  ex- 
plained to  Ijc  the  powers  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  affirmed 
to  be  holy  spirits.  Women  also  in  black  dress  form  a  part 
of  the  allegory.  When  this  part  of  the  allegory  is  explained, 
the  names  of  the  virgins  or  holy  spirits  are.  Faith,  Self-restraint 
(Abstinentia) ,  Power,  and  Patience.  The  women  in  black  are 
explained  to  be  Perfidy,  Intemperance,  Incredulity,  Pleasure, 
Sadness,  Malice,  Lust,  Wrath,  Lying,  Folly,  Self-conceit,  and 
Hatred.  And  the  interpreter  adds,  "  The  servant  of  God  who 
carries  these  spirits  shall  indeed  see  the  kingdom  of  God,  but 
shall  not  enter  it."  It  will  be  noticed  that  when  the  passion 
is  bad  the  word  '  spirit '  then  becomes  equal  to  demon.     So  it 

«  Bun-sen,  Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  i.  p.  211.    In  a  note  he  enters 
more  fully  into  an  explanation  of  the  passage. 

f  p.  213.  K  Mand.  ii.  '1  Ibid.  i.\, 


288  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

is  said  that  "  boldness  and  too  great  confidence  is  a  great 
demon/'  (magnum  diemonium"). 

This  method  of  hypostatizing  must  be  kept  in  mind,  if 
we  are  to  understand  the  references  to  the  holy  spirit,  for 
the  writer  speaks  of  it  in  a  way  that  he  could  not  have 
done  had  he  regarded  the  holy  spirit  as  one  of  the  persons 
of  the  Deity,  or  as  gifted  with  full  and  complete  personality. 
Thus  'the  hol}^  spirit'  is  identified  with  goodness  in  man, 
and  is  spoken  of  as  expelled  by  wickedness.  "  Be  patient,'' 
he  says,  "  and  thou  wilt  work  all  righteousness.  But  if  thou 
art  patient,  the  holy  spirit  which  dwells  in  thee  will  be  pure, 
and  will  not  be  darkened  by  any  very  wicked  spirit,  but  de- 
lighting it  will  be  enlarged.  .  .  .  But  if  any  anger  shall  come 
upon  thee,  then  forthwith  the  holy  spirit  which  is  in  thee  will 
be  straightened,  and  will  seek  to  depart ;  for  it  is  suffocated 
by  a  most  wicked  spirit J."  In  like  manner  man  is  said  to  be 
left  by  the  holy  spirit,  when  evil  spirits  come  in  and  he  is 
blinded  by  evil  thoughts'^  j  and  sadness,  the  worst  of  all 
wicked  spirits,  is  described  as  torturing  the  holy  spirit,  and 
then  saving  it,  (cruciat  spiritum  sanctum  et  iterum  salvaim 
facitl).  Hermas  is  warned  to  take  away  sadness,  and  not  offend 
the  holy  spirit,  "  lest  it  ask  the  Lord  (God,  Palat.  and  Greek) 
and  depart  from  thee."  This  holy  spirit  is  given  by  God,  and 
thoug-h  its  personality  seems  so  distinctly  marked  out  in  these 
passages,  yet  in  the  context  occur  the  words  "  sadness  joined 
to  the  holy  spirit™."  The  holy  spirit  is  spoken  of  as  being 
introduced  into  the  body  of  man,  and  commanding  obedience; 
and  it  is  declared  that  if  a  person  defiles  this  body,  he  defiles 
the  holy  spirit".  Hermas  is  also  warned  not  to  join  a  bad 
conscience  with  the  spirit  of  truth,  nor  cause  sorrow  to  the 
holy  and  true  spirit  of  God°. 

All  these  passages  connect  the  holy  spirit  with  moral 
goodness.  There  are  some  that  do  not  so  easily  identify 
themselves  with  this  notion.  Thus  it  is  said  that  the  Spirit 
carried  Hermas  away  p.     There  is  also  a  whole  commandment 

»  Sim.  ix.  2  2.  j  Mand.  v.  t.  ^  Ibid.  v.  2.  '  Ihid.  x.  1. 

ra  Mand.  x.  },.  "  Sim.  v.  6,  7.  "  Mand.  iii.  r  Vis.  i.  1  ;   ii.  2. 


v.]  THE  PASTOR  OF   HERMAS.  289 

devoted  to  the  disting-uishing  of  true  prophets  and  false, 
where  at  first  sight  the  holy  spirit  seems  to  meau  the  pro- 
phetic gift.  But  then,  as  the  prophetic  gift  plainly  means, 
not  the  power  of  foretelling  but  the  power  of  giving  out 
God's  message,  the  holy  spirit  is  seen  to  be  identical  with 
holiness.  The  holy  spirit  is  there  said  to  be  given  by  God, 
and  to  come  from  Him.  The  prophet  "has  the  divine  spirit 
from  heaven."  The  holy  spirit  is  also  identified  with  the 
prophetic  spirit.  B}-  the  agency  of  an  angel  of  the  prophetic 
spirit  the  prophet  is  said  to  be  filled  with  the  holy  spirit, 
and  then  the  spirit  speaks  and  is  manifested.  Holy  men 
too,  into  whose  assembl}-  the  prophet  enters,  are  described  as 
ha\ang'  the  spirit  of  divinity  (spiritum  divinitatis) ,  and  faith 
in  the  spirit  of  divinity  (Pal.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  false 
prophet  has  no  virtue  of  the  holy  spirit  in  him.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  said  "  his  spirit  is  filled  by  the  devil ;"  the 
spirit  being  identified  with  the  man,  though  in  most  passages 
it  is  kept  separate.  The  spirit  which  is  in  the  false  prophet 
is  earthly,  powerless,  and  full  of  folly.  Mention  is  also 
made  of  a  spirit  of  the  devil  '^. 

Angels. — The  references  to  angels  are  more  frequent  than 
in  contemporary  works,  because  the  allegory  required  their 
aid.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  determine  how  far  we  ought 
to  regard  the  statements  with  regard  to  angels  as  the  beliefs 
of  the  writer,  and  not  as  mere  conjectures.  As  he  does  not 
hint  that  he  is  merely  conjecturing,  and  as  his  statements 
with  regard  to  angels  are  made  in  the  same  way  as  his 
other  statements,  the  immense  probability  is,  that  however 
he  reached  his  beliefs,  he  really  did  believe  in  what  he  would 
call  his  facts  with  regard  to  angels.  Angels  by  the  writer 
are  generally  mentioned  as  employed  in  some  work;  good 
angels  in  works  of  goodness,  and  wicked  angels  in  evil  deeds. 
The  writer  mentions  six  angels  who  were  created  first,  and  to 
whom  the  Lord  entrusted  the  whole  creation,  to  increase  and 

1  Mand.  xi.     I  have  quoted  the  passages  here  from  tlie  Palatine,  the  text 

of  which  is  evidently  much  more  correct.  The  other  text  has  p.art  of  this 
chapter  in  Mand.  x.  and  part  in  Mand.  xii. 

VOL.  I.  tJ 


290  THE  APOSTOLICAL    FATIIEKS.         [Chap. 

rule  over  it.  Six  other  holy  aiigeLs  are  also  mentioned,  who 
are  not  so  excellent  as  the  first  class ^  Those  who  were 
created  first  were  also  called  by  God  into  his  council  in 
reg-ard  to  the  salvation  of  niau\ 

Several  special  ang-els  are  introduced,  and  two  are  named. 
One  is  Michael,  the  mag-nificent  and  good,  who  governs  the 
people  of  Christ,  inserts  the  law  in  the  hearts  of  those  who 
believe,  and  watches  if  they  keep  the  law*.  The  other  name 
is  uncertain,  the  readings  being  various  and  not  easily  ex- 
plicable. "  The  Lord  sent  his  angel  who  is  over  the  beasts, 
w^hose  name  is  Hegrin"."  The  Palatine  writes  the  name 
Tegri ;  and  Jerome  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  allude 
to  this  angel  by  the  name  Tyrus.  But  Cotelerius  is  unques- 
tionably right  in  supposing  that  Jerome  referred  to  an 
apocryphal  book  now  lost.  Most  probably  the  name  Tegrin, 
as  Dressel  supposes,  is  connected  with  aypiou,  but  commen- 
tators have  not  settled  and  cannot  settle  the  meanings. 
Besides  these  named,  angels  keej)  the  people  of  Christ  within 
boundsy,  angels  warn  to  well-doing^,  an  angel  called  'the 
Pastor'  presides  over  repentance^,  "and  all  who  repent  are 
justified  (made  righteous)  by  a  most  holy  angel''."  Every 
man  has  two  angels ;  one  of  righteousness  and  the  other  of 
iniquity.  The  one  speaks  to  him  of  righteousness,  chastity, 
kindness,  pardon,  love  and  piety,  and  is  to  be  obeyed ;  the 
other  whispers  all  evil  to  him,  and  is  to  be  discarded '-\  Be- 
sides these  angels,  the  writer  mentions  an  angel  who  presides 
over  pleasure,  and  who  allm-es  men  away  from  the  right 
path 'I;  and  a  just  angel,  who  presides  over  punishment^. 

•■  Vis.  iii.  4.  '  Sim.  v.  5. 

'  Siin.  viii.  3.  Cotelerius  in  loc.  quotes  Nicephorus,  who  calls  Michael 
b  Trjs   "Kpariavuv  vloTews    ecpopos.     Lib.  vii.  c.  50.  "  Vis.  iv.  2. 

»  See  the  notes  of  Cotelerius  and  Oxon.  in  the  edition  of  Clericus. 

>■  Sim.  V.  5.     '  Vis  iii.  5.     »  Lib.  ii.  (Proem  )  Mand.  iv.  2,  3.     •>  Mand.  v.  1. 

•=  Mand.  vi.  2.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  common  translation  here  haa 
duo  genii,  though  the  Vat.  and  Palatine  have  nuntii.  See  Dressel's  note. 
Cotelerius  in  his  note  quotes  passages  from  heathen  writers,  as  well  as  from  the 
Fathers,  to  show  how  prevalent  the  notion  was. 

d  Sim.  vi   2.  '  Ibid.  vi.  3. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   HER^f^S.  201 

In  two  passaofcs  g-ood  men  are  said  to  have  their  life  with 
the  ang'els,  and  as  these  statements  are  given  as  promises, 
they  have  heen  taken  to  refer  to  the  blessings  of  the  future  state. 
The  words  are  peculiar.  Unfortunately  they  differ  in  the  dif- 
ferent manuscripts.  The  first  passage  is,  "  Continue  stedfast,  3^6 
who  work  righteousness,  and  so  act  that  your  passage  (tran- 
situs  vester)  may  be  with  holy  angels^.^^  The  Greek  translates 
transitits  by  Trdpobot.  The  Palatine  reads  "  ut  fiat  iter  vestrnra." 
The  common  reading  unquestionably  points  to  a  future  state, 
or  rather  to  the  passing  from  this  life  into  the  next,  but  it 
might  possiblv  refer  to  the  passing  through  this  life  under 
the  protection  and  in  company  of  holy  angels.  The  Palatine 
seems  to  intimate  the  latter  more  distinctly.  The  second 
passage  is  :  "  These  then  have  their  life  (conversatio  ;  mode  of 
life)  among  angelsS.^'  The  writer  is  explaining  a  similitude, 
and  Hhese'  are  men  who  have  walked  in  truth.  The  Palatine 
reads,  "  Talium  ergo  traditio  cum  angelis  erit.''^  The  Greek 
gives,  "  The  passage  (Trdpobos)  of  such  shall  be  with  angels." 
The  common  reading  refers  to  the  present  state,  but  might 
possibly  refer  to  the  condition  of  good  men  after  death.  The 
Palatine  and  Greek  unquestionably  refer  to  the  future  state. 

IV/e  Devil. — The  devil  is  mentioned  especially  as  the  enemy 
of  Christians.  Christians  are  rej^resented  as  in  a  pilgrimage. 
The  state  through  which  they  pass  is  not  the  state  of  their 
Lord-  They  ought  not  to  buy  fields  or  indulge  in  delicacies, 
for  all  these  things  belong  to  another,  and  are  under  his 
powerh.  The  Christianas  bounden  duty  is  therefore  to  "  leave 
the  devil  and  his  pleasures,  which  are  wicked,  bitter,  and 
impure  \"  The  devil  tempts  Christians,  plans  mischief 
against  them,  and  lies  in  wait  for  them'*.  But  for  all  that. 
Christians  are  not  to  fear  him ;  he  has  no  virtue  in  him'. 
God  knows  the  weakness  of  men,  and  the  manifold  wicked- 
ness of  the  devil ''\  If  men  then  put  their  trust  in  God,  and 
resist  the  devil,  he  will  give  way.  He  is  hard,  indeed,  and 
sure  to  wrestle,  but  he  must  yield.     Only  those  who  waver 

'  Vis.  ii.  2.  K  Sim.  ix.  25.  ''  Ibid.  i.  i.  '  Mand.  xii.  4. 

^  Mand.  iv.  3.         '  Ibid.  v-ii.  ;  xii.  6.       •"  Il)id.  iv.  3. 


■292  THE  APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

tear  the  devil".  Christians  are  to  Tear  the  deeds  of  the 
devil*'.  All  doubt  comes  from  himP;  evil  desire  comes  from 
liimH;  false  prophets  are  filled  with  his  spirit,  which  is  an 
earthly  spirit  ■"  ;  and  he  is  a  most  wicked  (ne<{uissimus) 
devils 

Man. — Hermas  says  little  of  the  nature  of  man.  He  makes 
no  mention  of  original  sin,  and  one  passage  can  scarcely  be 
reconciled  with  it.  He  says  that  a  man  ought  always  to 
speak  the  truth,  that  the  spirit  which  God  gave  him  might 
be  found  true  with  all  men.  "Those  therefore  who  lie  deny 
the  Lord,  not  rendering  back  to  God  the  deposit  which  they 
received.  For  they  received  a  spirit  without  lie  (acceperunt 
enim  spiritum  sine  mendacio) .  If  they  render  this  a  lying*  spirit, 
they  pollute  the  command  of  the  Lord  ^."  At  the  same  time 
Hermas  is  most  precise  on  the  evil  effects  of  sin.  It  pro- 
duces death  and  captivity",  and  man  needs  to  be  saved  from 
it,  to  be  renovated  and  restored  to  God.  This  is  done  without 
in  any  way  im2:)airing  man^s  free  will.  There  is  a  statement 
in  Hermas  so  precise  on  this  point  that  it  has  frequently  been 
quoted  in  proof  of  his  adherence  to  the  doctrine  of  free-will^, 
as  opposed  to  God^s  determination  of  man's  salvation.  The 
passage  runs  thus  :  "  To  those  whose  minds  the  Lord  had 
seen  would  be  pure  and  would  serve  Him  from  the  inmost 
heart,  He  gave  change  of  mind  (pcenitentia) ;  but  to  those 
whose  deceitfulness  and  wickedness  He  saw,  and  who  He  per- 
ceived w^ould  return  to  Him  deceitfully.  He  refused  a  return  to 
a  change  of  mind,  lest  they  should  again  curse  his  law  by 
abominable  wordsy."  Something  to  the  same  effect  is  also 
stated  in  Sim.  ix.  ^'^  :  "  AVhen  the  Lord  had  seen  that  their 
change  of  mind  was  good  and  pure,  and  that  they  could  re- 
main in  it,  he  ordered  their  former  sins  to  be  blotted  out.'*' 
Other  passages  have  also  been  addiiced  not  so  precise,  where 

"  Mand.  xii.  5.         "  Ibid.  vii.  p  Ibid.  ix.  "»  Ibid.  xii.  r. 

■■  Mand.  xi.  i.  »  Sim.  ix.  31.  '  Mand.  iii.  "  Vis.  i.  i. 

»  For  a  short  account   of  how   modern  writers  have  viewed  Hermas  in 
relation  to  the  doctrine  of  free  grace,  see  Jachniann,  p.  78. 
>   Sim.  viii.  6. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR   OF   HERMAS.  '  293 

Hernias  simply  says  that  those  who  purify  themselves  will 
receive  from  the  Lord  a  remedy  for  their  former  sins'',  and 
if  a  man  resists  the  devil,  he  will  flee  from  him  confused <'». 

There  are  also  some  passag-es '^  in  which  Hermas  makes  men- 
tion of  the  elect,  and  these  have  been  adduced  to  show  that 
Hermas  was  not  consistent  in  his  expressions  of  thought. 
It  is  most  probable,  however,  that  Hermas  used  the  word 
*  elect '  without  any  other  meaning"  than  that  they  were  at 
present  selected  from  the  world  to  be  the  church  of  God  ; 
and  the  word  thus  becomes  synonymous  in  its  use  to  'the 
holy^  or  to  'the  brethren/  Such  at  least  must  be  its  meaning- 
in  one  of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  used :  "  That  ruler  [the 
Lord]  has  sworn  by  his  glory  over  his  elect,  that  even  now 
if  any  one  sin  beyond  the  appointed  day,  he  shall  not  have 
salvation^."  For,  according  to  this,  even  some  of  the  elect 
may  not  be  saved.  Another  passag-e  of  a  similar  nature 
occurs  in  Vis.  i.  3.  At  the  same  time  it  has  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  Hermas  declares  that  repentance  and  faith  come 
from  God,  and  our  whole  salvation  is  thus  radically  ascribed 
to  God.  Whether  Hermas  felt  any  difficulty  in  reconciling 
man^s  free  will  with  God's  gift  of  faith  we  do  not  know  ; 
but,  as  he  has  not  expressed  it  anywhere,  so  we  may  regard 
it  as  most  probable  that  he  never  felt  it. 

Man's  Salvation. — The  salvation  of  man  is  spoken  of  in 
various  ways.  It  is  sometimes  called  penitence,  or  chang-e  of 
mind.  Sometimes  the  words  'to  live  to  God'  are  plainly 
used  as  equivalent  to  'to  be  saved''.'  Sometimes  the  idea  is 
expressed  by  the  word  '  life.'  And  the  words  '  safe '  and 
'  salvation'  are  themselves  frequently  employed. 

The  use  of  the  word  '  pcenitentia '  (penitence,  repentance, 
or  change  of  mind)  causes  considerable  uncertainty,  for  two 
reasons  :  first,  because  it  is  the  translation  of  two  Greek 
words,  one  of  which,  /xerdrota,  simply  means  '  change  of  mind,' 
complete  change  of  the  inner  being,  feelings,  and  thoughts  of 

'  Sim.  viii.  ii.  »  Mand.  xii.  5  ;  .r.achmanii,  p.  77. 

•>  Vis.  iii.  5  :  iv.  2.  <•"  Ibid.  ii.  2. 

•*  See  Mand.  iii.  and  Mand.  viii. 


204  THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

man;  and  the  other  of  which,  ixeraixtKeia,  means  simply 
'regret/  and  may  have  nothing-  good  in  it:  the  other  reason 
for  uncertainty  is,  that  Hernias  uses  the  same  word  to  denote 
the  grand  chang-e  which  takes  phice  in  a  man^s  life  once  for 
all,  and  a  repentance  for  sins  committed  after  this  change  has 
taken  place.  In  most  passages,  however,  the  distinction  can 
be  maintained  with  clearness. 

Forg-iveness  of  sins  is  granted  at  once  on  a  chang-e  of  mind. 
"Wiiosoever  with  his  whole  heart  changes  his  mind  and 
purilies  himself  from  all  the  iniquity  mentioned  above,  and 
adds  no  more  to  his  sins,  will  receive  from  the  Lord  a  cure 
for  his  former  sins,  if  he  doubt  not  with  regard  to  these 
commandments,  and  wall  live  to  Gode.^-'  This  declaration 
is  prefaced  with  the  information  that  chang-e  of  mind  is 
announced  to  all,  even  to  those  who  do  not  deserve  salvation 
on  account  of  their  deeds,  because  God  is  merciful  and 
patient,  and  wishes  to  preserve  the  invitation  *"  made -through 
his  Son.  In  another  passage  chang-e  of  mind  is  described 
as  a  turning  from  wretchedness  to  goodness,  a  putting  on 
of  all  virtue  and  justices.  In  a  third  passage  there  is  a  more 
minute  description  of  a  change  of  mind ;  but  it  is  possible 
that  the  description  is  meant  to  apply  to  the  repentance  of 
the  Christian,  and  not  to  the  conversion  of  the  sinner.  "  It 
behoves  him  who  repents  (agit  poenitentiam)  to  afflict  his 
own  soul,  and  to  show  a  humble  mind  in  every  business,  and 
to  endure  many  and  various  vexations ;  and  when  he  has 
endured  all  things  which  have  been  appointed  for  him,  then 
perhaps  He  who  created  and  formed  all  things  will  be  moved 
with  mercy  towards  him,  and  will  give  him  some  cure,  espe- 
cially if  he  see  the  heart  of  the  repentant  pure  from  all 
wicked  works  ^." 

This   change   of  life    is    expressly   connected    with    water, 

'  Sim.  viii.  1 1 . 

f  The  readins,'  of  this  passage  is  extremely  doubtful.     For  '  invitationem 
the  Vatican  reads  '  mutationem,'  and  the  Palatine  reads  quite  differentl}- : — 
••  et  viilt  ecclesiain  suam  qua>  e.st  filii  8ui,  salvare." 

F  Sim.  vi.  I.  *■  Ibid.  \-\i. 


v.]  TILE   PASTOR   OF  IIERMAS.  295 

which  in  baptism  was  the  great  symbol  of  purification  of  the 
whole  manj  and  it  is  described  as  a  fj-reat  and  holy  calling-, 
the  Palatine  adding",  "  with  which  the  Lord  has  called  his 
own  to  perpetual  life  '." 

«  The  elect  of  God,''  it  is  said,  "will  be  saved  through  f\nth." 
Faith  has  this  work  assigned  to  it  as  the  first  of  virtues,  and 
as  producing  the  rest.  It  is  the  mother  of  restraint  (absti- 
nentia) .  From  abstinentia  arises  innocence  (innocentia) ;  from 
innoceutia,  moderation  (modestia)  ;  from  moderation,  discipline 
and  love  (disciplina  et  caritas)!^.  Whoever  retains  the  works 
of  these  virtues  "  shall  have  his  habitation  with  the  saints  of 
Godl."  This,  with  anothern^,  are  the  only  passages  in  which 
faith  is  spoken  of  as  producing  salvation.  In  all  the  others, 
and  in  fact  in  jNIand.  viii.,  faith  and  its  concomitants  are 
ushered  in  with  the  words,  "  Hear  the  virtue  of  good  works 
which  you  ought  to  work,  that  you  may  be  able  to  be  safe/' 
The  activity  of  man  in  procuring  his  salvation  is  often  spoken 
of  by  Hermas ;  and  for  the  most  part  he  urges  men  to  one  or 
two  particular  things  which  will  save  them.  So,  in  speaking 
of  sin,  he  sa^'s  that  "  the  memory  of  injuries  works  death," 
while  "the  forgetfulness  of  injuries  works  eternal  life"."  Again, 
Hermas  is  said  to  be  made  safe  by  his  simplicity  and  singular 
continence,  and  all  who  have  the  same  character  will  attain  to 
eternal  life".  If  one  abstains  from  all  concupiscence  he  will 
be  an  heir  of  eternal  life  P.  "  If  you  keep  the  truth  you  will 
be  able  to  obtain  life'^.'''  "  Through  patience  and  humility 
of  life  men  will  obtain  lifeJ"."  Several  times  the  performance 
of  the  commandments  given  by  the  angel  of  repentance  is 
said  to  be  rewarded  with  life,  or  living  to  God  ^ ;  and  the  com- 
mandments themselves  are  said  to  be  able  to  bring  salvation 
to  men*.  In  addition  to  these  explanations  of  the  way  of 
life,  we  have  oftener  than  once  the  assertion,  "  life  is  made 

'  Mand.  iv.  3. 

^  The  Palatine  differs  slightly  here. 

'  Vis.  iii.  S.  '"  Mand.  viii.  "  Viw.  ii.  3. 

"  Via.  ii.  3,  p  Ibid.  iii.  8.  ^  Mand.  iii. 

'  Sim.  viii.  7.  •  Mand.  viii.  ^  Sim.  vi.  1. 


2m>  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

safe  throug"h  water/'  A  notice  of  these  expressions  will  fall 
under  the  suhjeet  of  Baptism.  Hernias  speaks  also  of  God 
being  propitiated.  Thus  he  sa}s,  "  When  he  thinks  justly 
he  will  have  the  Lord  proi)itious  to  him " ;"  and  salvation 
and  propitiation  are  plainly  identical  in  the  question  of 
Hermas,  "  How  shall  I  be  saved,  and  how  can  I  propitiate 
the  Lord  God  in  my  sins,  or  with  what  words  ask  Him  that 
He  may  be  proj)itiated  to  me  in  those  thing's  which  I  have 
thought*  ?  " 

C<)ii(liic-t  of  Chr'idlans. — Hernias  is  more  precise  on  certain 
points  of  Christian  conduct  than  his  contemporaries,  and 
several  unusual  subjects  thus  turn  up  in  the  course  of  his 
work.  There  is  one  passage  which  has  been  adduced  to  show 
that  Hermas  hints  at  the  doctrine  of  the  merit  of  works  of 
supererogation.  The  passage  runs  thus :  "  If  besides  those 
things  which  the  Lord  has  commanded,  you  add  something 
good,  you  will  acquire  greater  dignity,  and  3'ou  will  be  more 
honoured  with  God  than  you  would  have  been  ;  therefore,  if 
you  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  add  to  them 
these  fastings  (stationes),  you  will  rejoice  y."  The  nature  of  this 
fast  is,  that  he  keep  himself  pure  from  the  world,  and  then 
that  he  live  on  the  day  of  the  fast  on  bread  and  water,  and 
give  what  else  he  would  have  eaten  to  the  wadow  and  the 
needy. 

It  will  be  seen  that  unquestionably  there  is  a  false  idea 
propounded  hei-e  in  supposing  that  any  external  deed  will 
gain  a  man  greater  honour,  or  make  him  more  acceptable 
to  God.  But  at  the  same  time  the  deed  urged  is  such  that 
it  might  make  a  man  holier,  and  thus  bring  him  nearer  to 
God,  and  make  him  more  acceptable. 

The  subject  of  repentance  is  one  that  occurs  frequently  in 
the  works  of  Hermas.     How  often  will  a  renewed  man  fall 


"  Vis.  i.  I. 

"  Vis.  i.  2.  I  have  followed  the  Palatine  text  here,  the  Vatican  has  the 
word  'propitious'  only  in  the  last  clause. 

>  Sim.  V.  3.  Tlie  Palatine  makes  no  mention  here  of  the  '  stjitiones.'  but 
reads,  "  Add  something  a<lditional  to  j'our  works." 


v.]  THE   PASTOK    OF  IIKRMAS.  297 

back  into  his  old  state,  and  renew  himself  again  ?  Hernias 
answers  positively  that  there  is  but  one  change  of  mind  for 
such  a  man,  and  no  hope  after  that.  On  account,  however, 
of  the  use  of  the  Latin  word  '  poenitentia,'  the  doctrine  of 
Hermas  is  somewhat  obscure,  and  may  be  represented  in  a 
different  light.  ]\Iost  commentators  have  supposed  that 
Hermas  means  that  if  a  Christian  once  sins  greatly  after 
his  conversion,  he  may  repent  and  God  or  the  Church  will 
forgive  him ;  but  if  he  repent  a  second  time,  his  repentance 
is  not  to  be  accepted,  and  he  perishes  or  is  expelled  from  the 
Church.  We  lay  the  passages  before  the  reader,  premising 
that  the  introduction  of  the  Church  is  purely  gratuitous. 
We  shall  attempt  to  show  that  Hermas's  doctrine  is  purely 
spiritual,  and  is  a  psychological  problem,  and  not  a  matter  of 
doctrine  at  all. 

In  discussing  adultery,  he  says  that  the  husband  ought 
to  receive  the  guilty  wife  back  ;  "  but  not  often  :  for  to 
the  servants  of  God  there  is  one  (poenitentia)  change  of 
mindz.''  In  the  third  chapter  Hermas  refers  to  the  teaching 
of  some,  that  there  was  only  one  change  of  mind ;  namely, 
that  which  is  professed  at  baptism,  and  which  is  followed  by 
remission  of  sins.  The  angel  tells  him  that  this  was  true 
doctrine,  and  that  the  man  who  receives  this  change  should 
not  sin.  But  he  farther  adds  that  God,  knowing  the  wiles  of 
the  devil,  extended  his  mercy  ;  and  if  a  man  who  had  expe- 
rienced the  great  change,  shall  be  tempted  by  the  devil  and 
sin,  he  has  one  change  of  mind.  But  if  he  sin  after  that,  and 
then  change  his  mind,  such  conduct  ^^^ll  do  the  man  no  good, 
for  he  will  with  difficulty  live  to  God.  I  take  it  that  Hermas 
here  means  that  a  man  can  have  the  great  change  of  mind 
only  once,  because  it  is  only  once  that  a  man  can  be  called 
from  death  into  life.  It  is  possible,  however,  for  a  man  who 
has  thus  been  called  to  relapse  into  a  condition  as  bad  as  ever. 
Hermas  thinks  he  may  possibly  recover  from  this  relapse 
once  ;  but  if  he  falls  into  his  evil  ways  again,  his  case  becomes 

'  Mantl.  iv.  i.     The  reading  of  the  Palatine  is  considerably  different. 


2<»8  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  [Chap. 

hopeless.  God  leaves  him  to  his  hardness  of  heart,  and  the 
man  after  that  will  find  it  difficult  to  live  to  God,  however 
•j^reatly  he  may  chan<^e  his  convictions  on  tiie  point.  lie  g-oes 
farther  even  than  this.  He  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that,  while 
Gentiles  may  underg-o  the  great  change  of  mind  at  any  time 
lip  to  the  last  day,  there  is  a  certain  fixed  time  appointed  by 
God  within  which  if  a  saint  do  not  return  from  his  relapse  he 
will  not  he  saved.  "  For  the  changes  of  mind  of  the  saints 
have  limits.  Filled  up  are  the  days  of  change  of  mind  to  all 
saints  ^."  Accordingh-,  Hermas  describes  certain  classes  of 
Christians  to  whom  a  change  of  mind  is  impossible.  "  This 
(angel  of  pleasure),^''  he  says,  speaking  of  one  of  these  classes, 
"  corrupts  the  minds  of  the  servants  of  God,  and  turns  them 
away  from  the  truth,  delighting  them  with  pleasures  ;  and 
they  perish. ^^  These  he  divides  into  two  classes.  To  one  of 
them  "  there  is  no  return  of  life  through  change  of  mind  .  .  . 
They  are  destined  for  death b."  Another  class  of  Christians  he 
describes  as  dead  to  God,  and  not  changing  their  minds  c. 
And  another  class  still  he  mentions,  for  whom  he  says,  "  death 
is  set  forth,  and  no  change  of  mind'^.^'  The  doctrine  of 
Hermas  on  this  sul)ject  of  repentance  has  been  censured  as 
Montanistic.  We  have  seen  that  Hermas  does  not  once  speak 
of  it  as  a  church  matter  :  and  his  words  are  nowhere  so 
decided  and  positive  as  those  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews^. 
In  several  passages  it  is  shown  how  earthly  calamities  are 
intended  to  produce  a  turning  to  God  in  Christians  (especially 
Sim.  vi.) .  One  of  these  passages  has  been  absurdly  supposed 
by  some  to  countenance  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  ^  Hermas 
speaks  in  reference  to  a  vision,  and  says  of  a  certain  class, 
"  They  have  change  of  mind  (pa?uitentia),  but  they  cannot 
meet  in  this  tower.  Tliey  will,  however,  be  placed  in  a 
situation  much  lower ;  and,  after  they  have  been  tormented 
and  fulfilled  the  days  of  their  sins,  they  will  be  transferred, 


■''  Vis.  ii.  2.     Oomp.  Vis.  iii.  5.  '"  Siui.  vi.  2.  "^^  Ibid.  viii.  6. 

'■  Sim.  i\.  19.  ^  Heb.  vi.  4-6. 

f  Sciiltetu.s  and  Eivctus.     8ee  Bulls  Defens.  Fid.  Nic.  i.  2.  4. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR   OF  HE  MM  AS.  299 

because  they  understood  the  just  words."  The  lower  pUice  is 
a  part  simply  of  the  allegory  :  the  whole  takes  place  in  this 
world ;  and  the  sentiment  is,  that  if  a  man  sins,  he  may  be 
tormented  by  the  ills  of  this  life,  recog-nise  in  them  the  just 
sentence  of  God,  and  return  to  holiness.  But  if  punishment 
has  not  this  effect  on  men,  "  then  they  will  not  be  safe,  on 
account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts." 

One  of  the  points  of  the  Christian  life  which  is  brought 
prominently  forward  in  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  is  the  renuncia- 
tion of  the  world.  The  world,  as  we  have  seen  already,  he 
regards  as  being  under  the  power  of  the  devil,  and,  accord- 
ingly, Christians  are  urged  to  purify  their  hearts  "  from  all  the 
vices  of  this  age^."  The  acquisition  of  riches  is  emphatically 
forbidden.  '•  See,"  says  the  Pastor,  "  that  you  acquire  nothing 
more  than  what  is  necessary  and  sufficient,  since  you  are  now 
living  in  a  foreign  land '."  "  Instead  of  the  fields  which  you 
wish  to  buy,  redeem  souls  from  necessities,  as  each  of  you  can  ; 
free  widows,  do  justice  to  oi'phans,  and  spend  your  riches  and 
your  means  in  such  works."  "  Do  not  desire  the  riches  of  the 
Gentiles,  for  they  are  destructive  to  the  servants  of  God ;  but 
with  the  riches  which  you  have  of  your  own  do  those  things 
by  which  ye  can  gain  joy '^."  He  goes  farther  even  than  this, 
and  asserts  that  those  who  have  riches  must  lose  part  of 
them  before  they  themselves  can  become  useful  to  God,  as  on 
account  of  their  riches  and  their  business  they  are  tempted  to 
deny  God '.  And  he  regards  those  who  love  this  world  and 
glory  in  their  riches  as  peculiarly  liable  to  death  and  captivity, 
as  they  act  only  for  the  present,  and  forget  the  glories  of  the 
future  ■".     The  rich  are  therefore  urgently  entreated  to  help 

f  Vis.  iii.  7.  The  text  here  is  evidently  corrupt.  I  have  sUglitly  altered 
it  in  the  translation.  The  Latin  is — "  Habent  inqiiit  pcenitentiam,  sed  iu  hac 
turre  non  possunt  convenire  ;  alio  autem  loco  ponentur  multo  iiiferiore  ;  et 
hoc,  cum  cniciati  fuerint,  et  impleverint  dies  peccatorum.  Et  propter  hoc 
trausferentur  quoniam  perceperunt  verbuin  justuni." 

''  Mand.  ix.  '  Sim.  i.  ^  Ibid. 

'  Vi.s.  iii.  6.  "  Qui  divites  sunt  in  hoc  weculo,  nisi  circumcisje  fuerint  divitiae 
eorum,  non  possunt  Domino  utiles  esse." 

>"  \U.  i.  1. 


300  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.         [Chap. 

the  poor",  and  a  similitude °  is  devoted  to  show  how  the  help 
of  the  rich  man  does  as  much  good  to  himself  as  to  the  poor 
man ;  and  another  similitude  P  is  employed  to  show  how  this 
age  is  winter  to  the  righteous.  The  Pastor  of  Hermas  seems 
the  more  urgent  on  this  topic,  that  Hermas  himself  is  repre- 
sented as  having  Ijeen  carried  away  by  his  worldly  business  <1. 

Another  subject  which  engaged  the  Christian  mind  is  that 
of  marriage.  The  decisions  of  the  Pastor  on  this  subject  are — 
that  if  a  woman  commit  adultery,  the  religious  man  is  not 
to  remain  with  her.  He  is  not  allowed  however  to  marry, 
because  she  may  possibly  repent.  If  she  repents,  she  is  to 
be  taken  back  once  ;  not  oftener.  But  in  no  case  is  the  man 
to  marry.  So  also  is  the  wife  to  act  if  the  husband  commit 
adultery.  If  a  husband  or  wife  dies,  the  survivor  may  marry, 
but  he  who  remains  unmarried  "  gains  great  honour  for  him- 
self with  the  Lord  s/' 

In  regard  to  prayer,  Jachmann*  inaccurately  accuses  Hermas 
of  a  false  material  representation.  The  Pastor  simply  says,  that 
if  a  man  purify  his  heart  from  all  doubt,  and  put  on  faith, 
and  trust  God,  he  will  receive  whatever  he  ask  ".  But  there 
is  not  a  word  to  intimate  that  the  Pastor  refers  to  temporal 
blessings.  On  the  contrary,  the  whole  tenor  of  the  work 
forces  us  to  believe  that  he  had  no  reference  to  anything  but 
spiritual  desires  and  the  spiritual  life.  Nor  is  there  anything 
peculiarly  wrong  in  the  Pastor's  reference  to  the  martyrs. 
He  assigns  a  peculiar  place  of  honour  to  them,  but  in  words 
that  would  include  a  groat  number  more  than  those  who 
suilered  death,  and  exclude  many  who  did  suffer  death.  "  The 
place  which  is  at  the  right  hand,''  he  says,  "  belongs  to  them 
who  have  deserved  God "  and  have  suffered  for  his  name's 
sakey;"  and  this  place  will  be  given  to  those  who  do  like 
deeds  and  suffer  like  suffering's. 


"  Vis.  iii.  9.  "  Sim.  ii.  i'  Ibid.  iii.  t  Vis.  i.  3. 

'  Mand.  iv.  i.  '   Ibid.  4.  '  p.  84.  "  Hand.  ix. 

»  "  Qui  meruerunt  Deum."     The  Palatine  reads  "  placuerunt  Deo,"  which 
gives  a  better  Tiieaning,  though  not  necessarily  a  more  correct  text. 
>■  Vis.  iii.  I. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR   OF  IIERMAS.  30 1 

One  other  i)oint  in  the  relignous  life  as  exhibited  by  the 
Pastor  of  Hernias  deserves  notice.  It  is  its  cheerfuhiess. 
Sadness  is  spoken  of  as  most  disastrous  to  the  servants  of 
God,  and  they  are  urg-ed  to  clothe  themselves  with  joyfulness. 
"Every  cheerful  man  does  what  is  good,  and  always  thinks 
on  those  things  which  are  g-ood  ^." 

Church. — The  references  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Church  are  few.  He  unquestionably 
means  by  the  Church  the  whole  body  of  good  men  in  all 
ages,  and  it  is  curious  that  he  speaks  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church  as  realized  only  when  at  last  it  has  been  purified  from 
all  the  wicked.  "  You  saw  the  tower  so  purified  that  it  was 
believed  to  be  all  of  one  stone ;  so  the  Church  of  God,  when  it 
shall  be  purified  by  the  expulsion  of  the  bad  and  the  spurious 
(fictis),  the  wicked  and  the  wavering,  and  whoever  have  be- 
haved themselves  wickedly  in  it,  sinners  of  various  kinds,  shall 
be  one  body,  one  mind  (intellectus),  one  sense,  one  faith  and 
love,  and  then  shall  the  Son  of  God  rejoice  among-  them,  and 
receive  his  people  with  pure  will^."  The  Church  in  this  sense 
is  regarded  as  the  prime  object  of  God's  attention.  "  It  was 
created  first  of  all,"  says  the  Pastor,  "  and  on  its  account  the 
world  was  made  b."  The  exact  meaning  of  this  assertion  has 
been  doubted:  Rothe°  supposing  that  Hermas  made  the  church 
a  kind  of  aeon,  and  a  heavenly  person  the  first  creature  of 
God;  as  if,  like  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  he  had  made  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  heavenly  and  earthly  church.  But  there  is 
far  more  likelihood  in  the  opinion  of  Dressel^,  that  the  idea  is, 
God  formed  the  notion  of  the  church  first,  and  made  the  crea- 
tion of  other  things  have  a  reference  to  it.  Little  is  said  of 
the  history  of  the  church,  but  in  speaking  of  baptism  we  shall 
have  to  notice  the  admission  of  the  good  men  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  it.  The  time  at  which  the  book  was  written 
was  believed  not  to  be  far  distant  from  the  period  when  the 
church  would  be  completed*^  (cito  consummabitur) . 

»  Mand.  x.  3.  "  Sim.  ix.  18. 

<»  Vis.  ii.  4.     Comp.  Vis   i.  1,3.  ■=  Anfange,  p.  612,  note  42. 

*•  Siee  Dressel.  note  in  loc.  "^  Vi*.  iii.  8. 


302  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

With  regard  to  the  manaf]^emeiit  of  the  churches,  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  in  the  time  of  Hermas  presbyters  and 
overseers  were  identical.  The  evidence  for  this  is  as  follows  : 
The  church  orders  Hermas  to  give  a  book  to  the  presbyters 
(senioribus) ,  and  these  elders  are  described  as  being  "those 
who  preside  over  the  church f."  In  Sim.  ix.  27  the  overseers 
are  mentioned,  and,  as  if  to  explain  the  title,  it  is  added,  "  that 
is,  presidents  of  the  churches."  The  common  text  in  the  same 
chapter  speaks  of  a  different  class,  the  praesides  ministeriorum, 
who  protected  the  needy  and  "oidows,  and  who  have  been 
identified  with  deacons.  These  passages  are  not  decisive,  for 
several  reasons.  In  the  first  passage  Origen  reads  simply 
7rpeo-/3ure'pois  in  giving  the  Greek.  In  the  second,  the  Palatine 
differs  considerably  from  the  common  text,  and  gives  no 
explanation  of  the  word  '  overseer,'  and  makes  the  episcopi 
protect  the  needy  and  widows.  The  probabilit}-  however  of 
their  identity  is  rendered  greater  by  the  only  other  references 
to  the  managers  of  the  churches.  They  are  never  spoken  of  in 
the  singular.  It  is  always  "those  who  are  over  the  churchg;" 
and  these  words  plainly  refer,  not  to  all  those  who  have  rule 
in  the  church  universal,  but  to  those  individiials  who  had  the 
government  of  the  church  in  the  city  in  which  Hermas  was*". 
There  is  one  passage  indeed  from  which  Cotelerius  had  inferred 
that  Hermas  knew  three  orders  of  managers,  but  the  words 
warrant  no  such  inference.  "  Those  stones,"  he  says,  ''  are 
apostles,  and  overseers,  and  teachers,  and  servants  (ministri), 
who  have  walked  in  the  mercy  of  God  and  carried  on  their 
oversight,  and  taught  and  served  the  elect  of  God  in  a  holy 
and  sober  manner'."  The  apostles  and  overseers,  Cotelerius 
says,  carry  on  the  oversight,  the  teachers  are  elders  teaching, 
and  the  servants  are  deacons.  For  this  identification  however 
of  the  teachers  and  elders  there  is  not  the  slightest  authority 
in  Hermas,  and  accordingly  Oxon.  finds  it  only  in  Cyprian. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Pastor  speaks  of  these  teachers  oftener 

f  Vis.  ii.  4.  s  Ibid.  2,4  ;   iii.  9. 

*■  Vis.  ii.  4.      "  Tu  autem  leges  in  hac  civitate  cum  senioribus  qui  pne-^unt 
ecclesijc."  ■  Vis.  iii.  c. 


v.]  THE    PASTOli   OF  HERMAS.  303 

tlian  onceJ,  and  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  he  did  not  think  of 
them  as,  nor  identify  them  with,  any  class  of  church  governors, 
but  he  spoke  of  them  simply  as  teachers.  The  Palatine  diffei-s 
here  considerably  from  the  common  text,  and  instead  of  '  doc- 
tores'  reads  'mag-istri/ 

The  only  rite  of  the  church  to  which  Herraas  refers  is  that 
of  baptism ;  but  his  references  are  few  and  obscure.  The 
obscurity  arises  from  the  habit  prevalent  in  the  early  writers 
of  using  the  word  which  was  the  mere  symbol  or  external 
instrument  for  all  that  was  symbolized.  We  have  already 
seen  this  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  This  circumstance 
frequently  makes  it  difficult,  sometimes  impossible,  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  ^^Titer  had  any  reference  to  an  external 
rite  at  all.  The  rite  of  baptism  is  expressly  referred  to  in 
Vis.  iii.  7,  where  it  is  said,  "These  are  they  who  have  heard 
the  word,  wishing  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ; 
who,  however,  no  sooner  recollect  what  is  the  holiness  of  truth, 
than  they  draw  back  and  walk  after  their  wicked  desires.'^ 
In  another  passage  there  is  unquestionably  a  reference  only 
to  the  symbolized  truths  of  baptism.  The  church  (tower)  is 
said  to  be  built  on  waters,  and  the  reason  assigned  is,  "  For 
your  life  has  been  made  safe  by  water,  and  will  be  madei^.'' 
The  meaning  of  this  cannot  be  that  the  external  rite  of 
baptism  is  the  means  of  salvation  to  a  man,  and  that  at  last 
he  will  be  saved  througli  it.  For,  not  to  take  into  considera- 
tion that  the  whole  tenor  of  the  teaching  of  Hennas  is  opposed 
to  such  a  notion,  the  few  references  made  to  baptism  afford 
sufficient  evidence  to  contradict  such  an  interpretation.  For 
Hermas  expressly  says  that  some,  after  receiving  this  seal, 
and  after  having  received  faith  and  love,  "  have  stained  them- 
selves and  been  cast  forth  from  the  class  of  the  just,  and  have 
returned  to  their  former  state  and  become  even  worse  than 
they  were  before '.''  The  meaning  must  therefore  be,  that  men 
are  saved  by  the  purifying  power  shadowed  forth  in  the  water, 
and  that  they  will  be  saved  by  the  same  means.  The  iden- 
tification of  the  symbol  and  the  thing  symbolized  is  seen  in 

J  Sim.  ix.  1^,  i6,  25.  ''  Vis.  iii.  .1.  '  Sim.  ix.  17. 


304  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FAT  UK  LIS.  [Chap. 

a  passage  wliere  there  is  unquestionably  a  reference  both  to 
the  external  rite  and  the  internal  state.  "  I  have  heard  from 
some  teachers/^  he  says,  "  that  there  is  no  other  ehang-e  of 
mind  than  that  when  we  descend  into  water  and  receive 
remission  of  our  sins"^."  It  is  easy  to  account  for  this  iden- 
tification of  symbol  and  truth.  The  fact  was,  that  when  a 
man  felt  a  chang-e  come  over  him  throng-h  the  preaching  of 
the  trutli,  he  felt  an  impulse  to  jirofess  the  trutli,  and  ]>aptism 
was  his  outward  confession  of  his  acceptance  of  Christianity, 
his  recognition  of  the  process  of  change  of  mind  which  had 
been  going  on  within  him.  Though  therefore  the  rite  had 
in  itself  no  power,  yet  he  felt  impelled  and  commanded  to  go 
through  it,  and  consequently  he  marked  the  date  of  his  for- 
giveness from  the  solemn  outward  act  by  which  he  professed 
himself  washed  from  sins  and  renewed  to  God.  In  Sim.  ix.  i6 
Hernias  speaks  of  the  effect  of  baptism  in  words  slightly  dif- 
ferent. He  says  :  "  Before  a  man  receives  the  name  of  the  Son 
of  God  he  is  destined  to  death,  but  when  he  receives  that  sign 
he  is  freed  from  death  and  delivered  to  life.  Now  the  sign 
is  water;  into  which  men  descend  bound  to  die,  but  they 
ascend  assigned  to  life.^'  These  words  are  introduced  to 
show  how  the  Old  Testament  saints  required  that  the  apostles 
should  come  and  preach  to  them  before  they  could  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God.  They  had  lived  in  a  hoi}'  rnanner,  but 
they  had  not  received  the  full  blessings  which  were  bestowed 
in  baptism.  The  apostles  and  teachers,  therefore,  "  on  dying, 
preached  to  those  who  died  before,  and  gave  them  this  sign. 
They  descended  therefore  into  the  water  with  them,  and 
again  ascended.  But  these  descended  alive  and  again  ascended 
alive;  but  the  others,  who  had  fallen  asleep  before,  descended 
dead  but  ascended  alive.''  There  is  extreme  improbability  in 
the  supposition  which  Jachmann  and  others  make,  that  Hermas 
here  refers  to  a  literal  baptism  in  the  other  world.  In  fact,  most 
of  the  ancient  Jews  had  probably  undergone  many  baptisms, 
being  baptized  with  ]\Ioses  and  others ;  but  it  was  the  peculiar 
truths  and  power  which  Christ  revealed  and  conveyed  that 

"  Mand.  iv.  3. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   IJKRMAS.  IJO.". 

were  necessary  to  render  the  Old  Testament  saints  tit  for  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Cotelerius  is  therefore  fully  justified  in  saying- 
that  Hernias  speaks  of  a  baptism  metaphorical  and  mystical^ 
meaning  the  blessings  which -God  grants  in  the  baptism". 

We  have  already  seen  that  Hermas  mentions  the  practice 
of  fasting  with  especial  praise  o.  This  practice  was  confined, 
however,  entirely  to  individuals.  It  was  not,  in  fact,  enjoined 
at  all,  even  by  the  Lord,  as  Hermas  remarks,  and  he  gives 
a  similitude  to  show  that  the  Lord  feels  peculiar  delight  in 
a  servant  who,  without  being  ordered  to  fast,  practises  fasting. 
In  another  passage  answer  to  prayer  is  the  reward  of  fasting. 
"  Fast  therefore  and  you  will  receive  from  the  Lord  that 
which  you  demand P.^^  But  the  Palatine  reads  'he\\Q\e' 
(crede)   instead  of  'jejuna.' 

From  what  we  have  said  of  the  church,  of  repentance, 
baptism,  and  fasting,  and  the  method  of  salvation,  the  reader 
will  be  able  to  judge  Westcott's  statement,  "  The  idea  of 
Christian  law  lies  at  the  bottom  of  them  both  (the  Epistle 
of  James  and  the  Pastor  of  Hermas),  but  according  to  St. 
James  it  is  a  law  of  liberty  centring  in  man's  deliverance 
from  corruption  within  and  ceremonial  without;  while  Her- 
mas rather  looks  for  its  essence  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
outward  church^.''  Hermas  never  once  speaks  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  outward  church,  and  probably  could  not  have 
conceived  the  church  as   capable  of  giving  ordinances. 

Future  State. — The  teaching  of  Hermas  with  regard  to  a 
future  state  is  exceedingly  indefinite.  We  have  already  noticed 
some  expressions  with  regard  to  angels  and  the  opinion  of 
Hermas  with  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  saints.  Hermas's 
doctrine  of  the  future  state  comes  out  most  prominently  in 
contrasting  it  ^\dth  this  world.  This  age  is  winter  to  the  just, 
the  future  or  coming  age  is  summer.  The  elect  of  God  will 
dwell  in  the  future  age  and  remain  pure  and  unstained  to 
eternal  life^  They  will  all  be  joyful  then.  Those  who  do 
good  now  will   have  fruit  thens.     Hermas   speaks  of  future 

"  Not.  in  loo.  "  Sim.  v.  3.  i'  Via.  iii.  ro. 

'1  Hi.st.  of  the  Canon,  p.  222.       ■■  Vis.  iv.  ^.  '  Sim.  iv. 

VOL.  I.  X 


306  THE   APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.         [Chap. 

blessings  *j  and  he  says  that,  according  to  God's  promise,  all 
things  will  become  smooth  (plana)  to  the  elect  if  they  keep  his 
commandments".  Another  promise  is  also  given,  that  it"  the 
Christian  resist  unholy  desire,  armed  with  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
he  will  obtain  the  victory  and  be  crowned''.  On  the  other 
hand,  this  age  is  to  be  destroyed  through  fire  and  bloody. 
Mention  is  made  of  a  way  that  leads  to  destruction^.  Evil 
desire  puts  to  death  the  servants  of  God,  and  whosoever  is 
subject  to  it  will  die  for  ever".  Those  who  sin  and  do  not 
repent  of  their  sins  will  be  burned,  as  will  also  the  Gentiles, 
because  they  did  not  recognise  their  Creator.  But  the  most 
fearful  punishment  awaits  those  who  have  known  the  Lord 
and  done  iniquity.  Those  who  sin  in  ignorance  are  destined 
to  death,  but  those  who  have  known  the  Lord  and  seen  his 
wonderful  works,  if  they  live  wickedly,  vdW  be  doubly 
punished,  and  will  die  for  ever''. 

Scrijitures. — There  is  not  one  express  quotation  from  the  Old 
or  New  Testament,  and  only  one  that  can  be  identified.  This 
occurs  in  Vis.  ii.  2,  where  the  words  of  Matthew  x.  t^-^  are  or 
seem  to  be  quoted.  The  quotation  is  more  distinct  in  the  common 
text,  and  nearly  vanishes  in  the  Palatine.  Some  have  fancied 
a  reference  to  an  uncanonical  gospel  in  Sim.  ix.  16,  but  there 
is  not  the  slightest  foundation  for  such  a  conjecture.  There 
is  a  more  unquestionable  reference  to  an  apocryphal  work  in 
Vis.  ii.  3  :  "  The  Lord  is  near  to  those  who  turn  to  Him,  as 
it  is  written  in  Heldam  and  Modal,  who  prophesied  in  the 
wilderness  to  the  people.^'  Eldad  and  Medad,  of  which  the 
names  Heldam  and  Modal  (Heldat  andModat  in  the  Palatine) 
are  modifications,  are  mentioned  in  Numbers  xi.  26,  27,  and 
an  apocryphal  book  under  their  name  is  referred  to  in  a  work 
falsely  attributed  to  Athanasius  (Synopsis)  and  in  the  Sticho- 
metria  of  Nicephorus. 

IV.    LITERATURE. 

The  Pastor  of  Hermas  was  known  for  a  long  time  only  in 

'  Vis.  i.  I.  "   Ibid.  3.  "  Mand.  xii.  2.       >   Vis.  iv.  3. 

'  Mand.  \\.  \.  '  Ibid.  .\ii.  ?.  "^  Sim.  ix.  iS. 


v.]  THE    PASTOR    OF   UKJIMA.'S.  ?>()! 

the  Latin  translation.  The  codices  of  this  transhition  are 
diviiled  into  two  g-reat  classes.  At  the  head  of  the  first  is 
the  Codex  Yaticanus  3848,  written  at  the  end  of  the  four- 
teenth century''".  Cotelerius  naentions  three  manuscripts  vised 
by  him  ;  one  belonging  to  the  library  of  St.  Germains  (S. 
Germani),  with  a  trustworthy  text  but  unfortunately  muti- 
lated; another  more  recent,  and  so  different  from  the  common 
text  that  he  was  inclined  to  think  that  the  Latin  translation 
was  a  different  one.  It  belonged  to  the  library  of  St.  Victor. 
A  third  he  met  with  in  the  library  of  the  Barefoot  Carmelites 
of  Suburbium  (apud  Carmelitas  Excalceatos  Suburbii''). 
Clericus  says  that  he  gave  the  readings  of  the  Lambeth  MS. 
more  fully  and  accurately  than  Fell.  Fell  used  two  manu- 
scripts— a  Bodleian  and  a  Lambeth.  Bunsen  thus  speaks  of 
the  manuscripts  :  "  We  possess  it  only  in  a  rather  barbarous 
Latin  translation,  and  all  our  five  manuscripts  represent  but 
one  original.  In  the  three  Paris  manuscripts  the  Latin  of 
the  translation  is  corrected,  which  is  also  the  case,  although 
in  a  far  less  degree,  in  one  of  the  two  English  copies,^that  of 
the  Bodleian  Library.  The  MS.  at  Lambeth  Palace  is  the 
only  one  which  is  free  from  a  manifest  interpolation  common 
to  all  the  others"." 

Anger  also  mentions  a  Dresden  codex.  He  says  it  is  a 
manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  in  the  royal  library  of  Dresden 
(marked  A  47  fob),  in  which  between  the  Psalms  and  the 
Proverbs  he  found  the  Pastor  of  Hermas.  It  belongs  to  the 
fifteenth  century  ^ 

The  second  class  includes  but  one  codex — Codex  Palatinus 
150,  in  the  Vatican  Library.  It  belongs  to  the  fourteenth 
century.  As  has  been  remarked  already,  it  was  first  published 
by  Dressel.     Its  merits  have  been  discussed. 

In  1856  appeared  the  first  edition  of  a  Greek  text  of  the 
Pastor  of  Hermas,  under  the  care  of  Anger  and  Dindorf. 
The  manuscript  from  which  it  was  taken  was  three  leaves  of 

<=  Dressel,  Prolegomena,  p.  Iviii.  ''In  Pra;f. 

*  Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  i.  p.  184. 
f  Pasitor  of  Hennas  by  Anger,  Praf.  p.  viii. 

X  2 


:M)S  THK    Al'OSTOLKJAL    FATHERS.  [Chap. 

a  codex  lately  found  in  Mount  Athos  by  Simouides,  and  a 
copy  of  all  the  rest  except  a  small  portion.  In  a  short  time, 
however,  considerable  doubts  were  thrown  on  the  genuineness 
of  this  text,  through  a  revelation  of  Simonides's  forging* 
practices  made  by  a  companion''.  Tischendorfs  suspicions 
had  also  been  aroused.  On  examining  the  manuscript,  how- 
ever, he  believed  it  to  be  a  genuine  manuscript,  and  gave  a 
new  recension  of  it  in  Dressers  Apostolical  Fathers.  He  also 
wrote  a  dissertation,  showing  that  the  Greek,  though  not 
forged,  must  have  been  a  re-translation  from  the  Latin.  His 
arguments  seemed  to  himself  to  be  most  convincing,  and  he 
remarks  at  the  conclusion  of  his  essay  :  "  Non  deerunt  quideni 
qui  etiam  tot  argumentorum  conjunctorum  vim  subterfugiant : 
nirairum  sunt  qui  probabilitatis  certique  sensum  aut  natura 
non  habent  aut  studiis  amisei-unt,  quique  verum  tanquam  ad- 
versarium  malunt  eonvincere  quam  integro  animo  invenire'." 
"  There  will  no  doubt  be  individuals  who  will  be  able  to  elude 
the  force  of  even  so  many  arguments  joined  together,  to  wit, 
those  who  have  naturally  no  perception  of  what  can  be  proved 
and  is  certain,  or  who  have  lost  this  perception  b}'  their  party- 
feelings,  and  who  prefer  refuting  the  truth  as  if  it  were  an 
adversary  to  finding  it  out  with  unbiassed  mind."  To  the 
Sinaitic  Bible  which  Tischendorf  found  is  attached  a  portion 
of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  in  Greek.  The  text  of  this  portion 
is  substantially  the  same  as  that  given  in  the  Athos  manu- 
script. The  variations  are  comparatively  slight.  And  almost 
all  the  arguments  that  were  adduced  against  the  Athos 
manuscript  are  adducible  against  the  Sinaitic.  Tischeudorfs 
opinion, however, changed  on  his  finding  the  agreement  between 
the  two  texts.  In  his  Notitia,  p.  45,  he  wrote  :  "  I  am  glad 
to  be  aide  to  communicate  that  the  Leipzig  text  is  dei'ived 
not  from  middle-age  studies  but  from  the  old  original  text. 
IVI}'  opposite  opinion  is  proved  correct  in  so  far  as  that  the 
Leipzig  text  is  disfigured  b}'  many  corruptions,  such  as 
without  doubt  proceed  from  middle-age  use  of  Latin."     And 

^  Enthiillungen  iiber  den  Simonides-Dindorfischen   Uranios  von  Alexander 
Lycurgus.     Leipzig  i.'^56.  '  p.  liv. 


v.]  THE   J'A^STOIi    OF   HE  EM  AS.  'M)\) 

he  repeats  his  belief  that  the  Leipzig-  text  is  g-enuine  in  the 
Proleg-omena  to  the  Novum  Tcstanientiim  Sinaitieum^'.  The 
discovery  of  this  manuscript  does  not  however  impair  the  force 
of  the  arguments  which  he  emph)yed  ;  and  as  they  are  in  the 
main  applicable  to  the  Sinaitic  coilex^  they  compel  us  to  reject 
the  Greek  text  of  Hermas  given  there  as  spurious. 

The  arguments  may  be  divided  into  two  classes ;  those 
which  indicate  that  the  Greek  is  of  late  origin,  and  those 
which  tend  to  prove  that  the  Greek  text  is  derived  from  some 
Latin  translation. 

The  late  orig-in  of  the  Greek  is  indicated  by  the  occurrence 
of  a  great  number  of  words  unkno^^^l  to  the  classical  period, 
but  common  in  later  or  modern  Greek.  Such  are  fiovi6s\ 
(Ti'iJ-l^Los  (as  wife)'",  jue  (for  ^CTa"),  TipbiTOKadebpiels,  layvpoViOiGi 
KOT €77 lOi'ixS)",  acTvyKpaa-iaV,  Karayyixa'^^,  l^aKpi^a^op-ai.^ ,  and  such 
like.  The  lateness  of  the  Greek  appears  also  from  late  forms ; 
such  as  aya^cordrTjs^,  fxeOiaTavet^,  otbas,  acpCovaL^,  [a(f)Cvovaiv  in 
Sim.  Greek),  KUTeKOTsTav^,  eveo-KipcopLevoiy,  eTT^hihovv^,  iriOovv^, 
beside  iTideuav^,  (ax^av^,  \7]ju\|/7]'',  eKiribav^,  TidGt^,  €TT€pL\j/as 
and  yvoL^asS,  elTiaa-a^^,  x^ipai^'j  aT7K6TnTav^,  aapKav^,  (rvviS)"^, 
avi'Ui" ;  and  some  modern  Greek  forms,  such  as  Kparaovo-a  for 
KpaT()V(Ta°,  have  been  corrected  by  the  writer  of  the  manu- 
script. The  lateness  of  the  Greek  appears  also  in  the  absence 
of  the  optative  and  the  frequent  use  of  tva  after  kpuiTav,  a^t&, 
alTovixat,  ez-reAAo/uai,  ci^tos,  &c.,  generally  with  the  subjunctive, 
never  with  the  optative.  We  also  find  edv  joined  with  the 
indicutivei*.  Ets  is  continually  used  for  iv"^,  as  'ixP'^criv  tovov 
fh  Tov  TTvpyov^.  We  have  also  -napa  after  comparatives^,  and 
peculiar   constructions,  as  7rep6xap^s  tov  Ihdv^,  cn7ovhaios  etV  to 


•<  p.  xl.  and  note. 

'  Vis.  i.  3. 

n.  Ibid.  ii. 

2. 

"  Ibid.  iii.  3. 

"  Vis.  iii.  2. 

p  Ibid.  9. 

•1  Ibid. 

■■  Mand.  iv.  2. 

'  Vis.  i.  2. 

'  Ibid.  3. 

"  Ibid.  iii. 

1  ■ 

"  Ibid.  2. 

>  Vis.  iii.  9. 

^  Ibid.  2. 

-  Ibid. 

b  Ibid. 

«  Vis.  iii.  5. 

"*  Ibid.  10. 

<;  Ibid.  II. 

f  Ibid.  i.  I  ;  ii.  1 

«  Vis.  iv.  2. 

h  Ibid.  3. 

i  Ibid.  V. 

^  Mand.  ii. 

'  Mand.  iv.  i . 

■"  Ibid.  2. 

"  Ibid. 

•>  Vis.  iii.  8. 

p  Vis.  iii.  5. 

'1   Ibid.  i.  I,  2,  4  ; 

;  iii. 

7.9- 

r    Ibid.  iii. 

9- 

^  llnd.  12. 

«  Vis.  iii.  S. 

:{|0  THE  apostolical'  FATHERS.         [Chap. 

yvdivai'^,  aircyvoipicrdai  &tt6*.  And  we  have  a  neuter  plural 
joined  with  a  ])lural  verb,  KTi')i'r]  epxovTat'^.  Most,  if  not  all, 
of  these  peculiarities  now  mentioned,  maybe  found  in  Hellen- 
istic writings,  especially  the  New  Testament ;  and  some  of 
them  maybe  paralleled  even  in  classical  writers.  But  if  we 
consider  that  the  portion  which  has  now  been  examined  is 
small,  and  that  every  page  is  filled  with  these  peculiarities, 
the  only  conclusion  to  which  we  can  come  is,  that  the  Greek 
is  not  the  Greek  of  the  at  least  first  five  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era.  There  is  no  document  written  within  that  period 
which  has  half  so  many  neo-Hellenic  forms,  taken  page  by 
l»age,  as  this  Greek  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas. 

The  peculiarities  which  point  out  a  Latin  origin  ai-e  the 
following : — 

There  are,  first,  a  number  of  Latin  words  where  you  would 
naturally  expect  Greek.  Such  are  aviJi\}/i\\iov,  Kep^iKdpioL', 
Xil'TLOV,  KapTTuaLvov. 

Then  there  is  a  considerable  number  of  passages  preserved 
to  us  in  Greek  by  Origen  and  other  writers.  The  Sinaitic 
Greek  differs  often  from  this  Greek,  and  agrees  with  the 
Latin  translation,  especially  the  Palatine.  There  is  every, 
especially  internal,  probability  that  the  Greek  of  the  ancient 
writers  is  nearer  the  original  than  the  Sinaitic. 

Then  there  occurs  this  passage,  epeis  8e  Ma^t/AO)'  ibov  6\C\f/ii 
epxerai^.  The  common  Latin  translation  is  :  '  Dices  autem ; 
ecce  magna  tribulatio  venit.^  Now  here  there  is  no  trace  of 
the  Mafi/x(i).  But  we  find  it  in  the  Palatine,  '  Dicis  autem 
maximo :  ecce  trilmlatio,''  which  Dressel  changes  into  '  Dicis 
autem;  maxima  ecce  tribulatio.'  The  Palatine  accounts  well 
for  the  origin  of  Ma^[p.u>  in  the  Sinaitic  Greek,  but  it  is  not 
possible  to  account  for  the  common  '  magna,'  if  Ma^ijuw  had 
been  originally  in  the  Greek. 

All  these  examples  have  been  taken  from  the  Sinaitic 
Greek.  But  the  arguments  become  tenfold  stronger  if  the 
Sinaitic  Greek  is  to  stand  or  fall  with  the  Athos  Greek.  And 
this  must  be,  for  they  are  substantial! v  the  same.     No  doubt 

<■  Yis.  iii.   1.  >    lliid.  ii.  2.  :•    Il)id.  iv.  1.  '   Iliiil,  ii.  3. 


v.]  THE   PASTOR   OF   IIERMAS.  311 

some  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  carelessness  of  tran- 
scribers, but  after  every  allowance  is  made,  there  is  enough 
to  convict  both  texts  of  a  late  origin,  and  to  make  it  extremely- 
probable  that  both  are  translations  from  the  Latin «. 

EDITIONS. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  appeared  at  Paris 
1513,  fob,  under  the  care  of  Jacobus  Faber  (Stapulensis). 
Dressel  praises  it  for  the  correctness  of  the  text.  It  was  re- 
printed in  most  of  the  subsequent  collections  of  the  Fathers. 
It  was  also  edited  by  Barth  in  1655.  Cotelerius,  as  we  have 
seen,  inserted  a  new  recension  of  it  in  his  collection.  It  was 
after  that  edited  by  Fell,  Oxford  1685,  and  Fabricius  made  it 
part  of  his  Codex  Apocryph us  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  iii.  Hamburg-. 
1719.  It  appeared  also  in  Russel,  Gallandi  and  Mig-ne.  Since 
that  time  it  has  been  published  by  Hefele  and  Dressel.  An 
Ethiopic  translation  of  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  has  been  edited  : 
"  Hermae  Pastor  ^thiopice  primum  edidit  et  ^Ethiopica  Latine 
vertit  Antonius  d'Abbadie.  Leipzig-  i860."  The  conclusion 
maintains  that  Hermas  is  Paul;  in  other  words,  that  the  pro- 
phet Hermas  is  no  other  than  the  apostle  Paul.  He  adduces 
several  reasons  for  this  opinion ;  among  others  the  words  of 
the  Acts,  "  They  called  Silas  Zeus,  and  Paul  Hermes."  In 
two  of  the  similitudes  several  chapters  are  condensed.  This 
happens  in  regard  to  the  famous  passage  on  the  Son  being 
the  Spirit. 

A  translation  is  given  in  Wakens  Genuine  Epistles  of  the 
Apostolical  Fathers. 

»  The  reasons  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Simonidean  text  and  refutations  of 
the  objections,  are  given  in  Anger's  Preface,  and  in  Nachtriigliche  Benierkun- 
gen  zu  Herma.s  von  Rudolph  Anger  und  Wilhelm  Dindorf :  Three  Parts  : 
Leipzig  1 856-58. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

PAPI  AS. 
I.     LIFE. 

J.  HE  only  reliable  sources  from  which  we  derive  information 
with  regard  to  Papias  are  the  works  of  Irenaeus  and  Eusehius. 
Irenseus  mentions  him  as  '  a  hearer  of  John/  '  a  companion 
of  Polycarp/  and  calls  him  'an  ancient  man=i.^  There  has 
been  much  dispute  as  to  whether  the  John  here  mentioned 
was  the  apostle  John ;  for  Eusehius  is  decidedly  of  opinion 
that  he  was  not  a  hearer  of  John  the  apostle.  The  historian 
has  supplied  us  with  his  evidence.  He  appeals  to  a  passage 
at  the  commencement  of  the  work  of  Papias  which  runs  thus  : 
"But  I  shall  not  he  slow  to  put  down  along  with  my 
interpretations  those  things  which  I  learned  well  from  the 
elders  and  remembered  well,  assuring  you  of  the  truth  with 
regard  to  them''.  For  I  did  not,  like  the  many,  delight  in 
those  who  spoke  much,  but  in  those  who  taught  the  truth ; 
not  in  those  who  rehearsed  the  commands  of  others'^,  but 
in  those  who  rehearsed  the  commands  g^iven  by  the  Lord  to 
faith,  and  proceeding  from  truth  itself.  If  then  any  one  who 
had  attended  on  the  elders  came,  I  inquired  diligently  as  to 
the  words  of  the  elders  ;  what  Andrew  or  what  Peter  said,  or 
Philip,  or  Thomas,  or  James,  or  John,  or  ]\Iatthew,  or  any 
other  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  ;  and  what  things  Aristion 

»  Adv.  Hseres.  v.  33,  4  ;  also  in  Eiiseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 

''  For  the  inferences  which  may  be  drawTi  in  regard  to  our  gospels  from  this 
passage,  see  Westcott,  Hist,  of  Can.  p.  78. 

*^  Valesius  translates  aWoTpias  ivroKas,  'nova  quaedam  et  iiiusitata  praecepta.' 
Something  new  and  strange  is  implied  in  the  verj-  contrast  between  the-'^e 
commands  and  those  of  Christ. 


YL]  PA  PI  AS.  :n:{ 

and  the  elder  John^  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say.  For  I  was 
of  opinion  that  what  could  be  g-ot  in  books  would  not  profit 
me  so  much  as  what  I  could  get  from  the  living  and  abiding- 
voice*'."  Eusebius  infers  from  the  double  mention  of  the 
name  of  John  that  two  Johns  existed,  and  that  the  latter- 
mentioned  John,  called  the  elder  or  presbyter,  was  the 
instructor  of  Papias.  We  think  Eusebius  is  right  in  his 
inference.  As  Eusebius  well  remarks,  Papias  makes  a  clear 
distinction  between  what  Peter  and  John  and  the  other 
apostles  said,  and  what  Aristion  and  the  elder  or  presbyter 
John  were  still  saying.  He  plainly  confessed  too  that  his 
information  was  derived  not  from  the  apostles  themselves, 
but  from  those  who  had  been  in  the  company  of  the  apostles. 
And  Eusebius  further  informs  us  that  Papias  made  frequent 
mention  of  Aristion  and  John  the  elder  in  his  work,  quoting- 
their  traditions.  We  scarcely  think  that  Eusebius  could  have 
been  mistaken  on  such  a  point  as  this,  for  the  traditions  of 
John  the  elder  must  have  been  easily  distinguishable  from 
those  of  the  apostle.  At  the  same  time  we  are  inclined  to 
think  that  Irenseus  meant  the  apostle  John  in  his  statement, 
but  even  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  For  in  mentioning 
John  before,  he  simply  calls  him  a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  which 
John  the  presbyter  was ;  while,  if  he  had  meant  the  apostle 
John,  he  would  probably  have  called  him  apostle.  Besides, 
there  is  nothing  impossible  in  the  supposition  that  Papias 
should  in  his  boyhood  have  listened  to  the  Christian  veteran, 
have  failed  to  remember  much  of  his  discourse,  and  been 
therefore  dependent  on  those  who  were  older  than  himself. 
In  fact,  if  he  had  met  many  of  those  who  had  conversed  with 
the  other  apostles,  who  all  left  this  world  a  considerable  time 
before  John,  he  must  have  been  born  before  the  death  of 
John. 

Of  his  life  and  death  we  know  nothing  on  good  au- 
thority, except  that  he  was  overseer  of  the  church  sojourning 
in  Hierapolis*',  a  city  of  Phrygia  and  the  l)irthplace  of 
the  great  Stoic  philosopher  Epictetus.      Later  writers  have 

•*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  39.  '  Ibid.  iii.  ^6. 


314  THE  APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.        [Chap. 

described  liis  martyrdom f^;  someS  saying"  that  he  suffered 
witli  Onesimus  at  Rome,  others •i  that  Perg-amus  was  the  scene 
of"  his  death,  and  that  the  event  happened  at  the  same  time 
as  the  martyrdom  of  Pohcarp. 

II.    WRITINGS  AND  TEACHING. 

Irenseus'  mentions  that  Papias  wrote  five  books,  and 
Eusebius  informs  us  that  the  name  of  the  book  was  "  An 
Exposition  of  the  Lord's  saying-s''.''  Of  the  nature  of  this 
work  we  can  form  no  exact  idea,  as  all  the  extracts,  except 
one,  which  have  come  down  to  us  are  of  an  historical  nature. 
This  much  we  know  from  the  passag-e  already  quoted,  that  it 
was  based  on  unwritten  tradition,  and  Eusebius  also  asserts  that 
it  contained  some  strange  parables  and  teachings  of  the  Lord 
and  other  things  of  a  somewhat  fabulous  nature  {(xvOiKcaTepa). 
Eusebius  describes  Papias  as  a  man  "  most  learned  in  all  things, 
and  well  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures ^'^  In  another  place, 
however,  he  estimates  him  from  his  work  as  having  an  ex- 
ceedingly small  mind"".  Various  efforts  have  been  made  to 
reconcile  these  apparently  discrepant  statements,  and  some 
have  entirely  rejected  the  first,  partly  on  account  of  the  sup- 
posed discrepancy,  and  partly  because  the  passage  is  not  foimd 
in  several  manuscripts.  It  seems  to  me  most  likely  that  there 
is  a  real  discrepancy,  but  that  that  discrepancy  existed  in  the 
original  work  of  Eusebius ;  that  when  mentioning  him  first  in 
company  A\-ith  others  he  spoke  of  him  as  he  ought  to  have 
done,  but  in  coming  suddenly  upon  a  dogma  which  he  dis- 
liked, he  rashly  pronounced  the  propounder  of  it  a  man  of 
small  capacity.  At  the  same  time  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  praise  and  the  blame  might  justly  fall  on  the  same 
man  ;  that  a  man  iniglit  be  Aoytwraros,  a  very  great  reader, 
and  yet  a  very  poor  thinker. 

f  Gobaras  in  Phot.  Bibl.  232. 

f  Halloix  from  the  Acts  of  Onesimus  :  but  see  Pormaneder.  Patrol.  Spec, 
ji.  59,  note  18. 

>'  Chron.  Pasch.  ad.  ann.  16.^.  '  Adv.  Hxr.  v.  33,  34. 

k  Hist.  i!ocl.  iii.  .:;9.  '  Ibid.  iii.  36.  '"  Ibid.  39. 


VI.]  FA  PI  AS.  •  315 

The  only  point  of  doctrine  on  which  we  have  the  opinion 
of  Piijiias  is  that  of  the  millennium.  He  held,  according-  to 
Eusebius",  "that  there  would  be  some  millennium  alter  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  when  the  personal  reign  of  Christ 
would  be  established  u])on  this  earth/^  Eusebius  was  probably 
mistaken.  Papias  and  most,  perhaps  all,  early  Christians 
believed,  if  they  had  a  belief  on  the  matter,  that  after  the 
resurrection  the  just  would  dwell  upon  this  earth  renewed  and 
beautified.  It  is  likely  that  Eusebius  identified  this  opinion 
with  the  belief  in  a  millennium.  Even  modern  critics  have 
found  a  reference  to  the  millennium  in  a  speech  which  Papias 
set  down  as  Christ's  on  the  authority  of  the  elders.  We  get 
our  information  from  Irenfeus,  who  says  that  the  "  elders  who 
had  seen  John,  the  disciple  of  Christ,  remembered  that  they 
heard  from  him  how  the  Lord  taug-ht  with  regard  to  those  days, 
and  said,  'The  days  will  come  in  which  vines  shall  grow  having 
ten  thousand  branches,  and  in  each  branch  ten  thousand  twigs, 
and  in  each  twig  ten  thousand  shoots,  and  in  each  shoot  ten 
thousand  clusters,  and  in  each  cluster  ten  thousand  grapes, 
and  each  grape  when  pressed  will  give  five -and -twenty 
metretes  of  wine.  And  when  one  of  the  saints  shall  lay  hold 
of  a  cluster,  another  shall  cry  out, '  I  am  a  better  cluster,  take 
me,  bless  the  Lord  through  me.'  In  like  manner  he  said  that 
a  grain  of  wheat  would  produce  ten  thousand  ears,  and  each 
ear  vs^ould  have  ten  thousand  grains,  and  each  grain  would 
weigh  ten  pounds  of  clear,  pure,  fine  flour ;  and  that  apples, 
and  seeds,  and  grass  would  be  in  similar  proportions;  and 
tliat  all  animals  using  as  food  what  is  received  from  the  earth 
would  become  peaceable  and  liarmonious,  being  subject  to 
men  in  all  subjection.''  Irena?us  says  that  these  words  of  Christ 
were  given  in  the  fourth  book  of  Papias.  "  And  he  [Papias] 
added,  saying,  *^  These  things  can  be  believed  by  those  who 
l)elieve.'  And  Judas  the  traitor  not  believing  and  asking, 
liow  shall  such  growths  be  accomplished  by  the  Lord  ?  the 
Lord  said,  'They  shall  see  who  shall  come  to  them.'  "  There 
is  nothing  improbable  in  the  statement  that  the  Lftrd  spoke 

"  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 


;n<>  THE   APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.         [Chap. 

in  some  such  way,  and  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  Papias 
took  literally  what  was  meant  for  alleg-ory.  We  have  no 
express  quotation  from  Papias  which  shows  that  he  referred 
these  statements  to  a  millennium,  or  that  he  took  them 
literally.     Irenaeus  unquestionably  did  both. 

The  most  important  of  the  traditions  of  Papias  which  have 
reached  us  is  that  which  relates  to  Matthew  and  Mark. 
With  reg-ard  to  Matthew  he  says  that  "  he  wrote  the  sayings 
in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  each  one  interpreted  them  as 
})est  he  could"."  Considerable  dispute  has  arisen  as  to  the 
meaning  of  ra  Ao'yta ;  whether  its  meaning  must  be  confined 
to  the  sapngs  of  Christ,  or  wdiether  the  words  might  not 
include  such  narrative  as  we  have  in  jNIatthew.  The  natural 
force  of  the  word  would  unquestionably  confine  it  to  the 
'  sayings,'  but  it  would  be  rash  to  base  upon  this  the  assertion 
that  Papias  meant  to  say  that  Matthew  gave  no  connecting 
nairativeP.  How  did  Papias  get  this  information?  .He  has 
already  told  us  the  general  sources  of  his  information.  In 
this  instance  we  cannot  be  far  wrong  in  ascribing  it  to  John 
the  elder,  as  in  the  information  with  regard  to  Mark,  John 
is  expressly  quoted.  The  extract  runs  thus  :  "  And  the  elder 
said  this.  Mark  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter, 
wrote  acciu-ately  what  things  he  remembered.  He  did  not, 
however,  relate  in  exact  order  the  things  which  were  spoken 
or  done  by  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  accom- 
])anied  him.  But  afterwards,  as  I  said,  he  accompanied  Peter, 
who  gave  forth  his  teachings  to  suit  the  wants  of  the  people, 
and  not  as  putting  together  a  full  account  of  the  sayings  of  the 
Lord ;  so  that  Mark,  thus  writing  some  things  just  as  he  himself 
recollected  them,  made  no  mistake.  For  of  this  one  thing  he 
took  especial  care,  to  omit  nothing  of  what  he  heard  or  to  put 
nothing  fictitious  into  them."  Eusebius  also  informs  us  that 
he  made  quotations  from  the  first  Epistle  of  John  and  the 
first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and   that  he  gave  another  stor\-,  that 

"  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 

•■  See  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  New  Test.,  vol.  i.  p.   65  ;   Westcott, 


VL]  F  API  AS.  .317 

of  a  woman  who  was  accused  of  many  sins  before  the  Lord ; 
"  which  story,"  he  adds,  "  is  now  contained  in  the  gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews."  This  is,  no  doubt,  the  story 
which  found  its  way  into  many  manuscripts  of  John's  gospel ; 
though  the  exjiression  '  another  story'  makes  it  perfectly  pos- 
sible that  Papias  gave  a  different  version,  or  rather  additional 
particulars,  with  regard  to  the  woman  there  mentioned. 

The  other  traditions  of  Papias  have  no  dogmatic  reference. 
He  relates  two  miracles.  The  first  of  these  was  the  resurrec- 
tion of  a  dead  man.  The  words  of  Papias  do  not  imply 
that  this  was  a  miracle  wrought  by  a  man,  but  sim])ly  that 
it  took  place  in  the  time  of  the  apostle  Philip,  whose 
daug'hters  were  under  the  pastoral  charge  of  Papias  and 
told  him  the  story.  The  other  story  seems  also  to  have  been 
authenticated  by  them.  It  was  that  Justus,  surnamed  Bar- 
sabas,  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  drank  deadly 
poison  without  being  in  the  least  injured.  There  are  other 
two  fragments,  which  have  been  attributed  to  Papias.  One, 
as  quoted  by  CEcumenius,  relates  that  the  death  of  Judas  was 
caused  by  a  carriage  running  over  him  and  crushing  out  his 
intestines.  Theophylact  adds  many  absurd  particulars  to  this 
statement,  apparently  as  if  he  had  found  them  in  the  work  of 
Papias,  but  the  best  critics  regard  them  as  the  fabrications  of 
a  later  age^.  The  other  gives  an  account  of  the  four  Maries 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  It  runs  thus  : — "  Mary, 
the  mother  of  the  Lord ;  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas  or 
Alpheus,  who  was  the  mother  of  James,  overseer  and  apostle, 
and  of  Simon  and  Thaddeus  and  of  one  Joseph ;  Mary 
Salome,  the  mfe  of  Zebedee,  mother  of  John  the  evangelist 
and  of  James ;  and  Mary  Magdalene.  These  four  are  found 
in  the  Gospel.  James  and  Judas  and  Joseph  were  sons  of 
the  aunt  of  the  Lord,  James  also  and  John  were  sons  of 
the  other  aunt  of  the  Lord.  Mary,  the  mother  of  James 
the    Less    and    Joseph,   wife   of  Alpheus,   was  the   sister  of 

1  See  Casaub.  Exercitat.  xvi.  adv.  Baronium  sect.  69  ;  Routh,  Reliquiae 
Sacrse,  vol.  i.  p.  25.  Some  reject  even  the  pas,sage  from  CEcumeniu.Sj  as 
spurious  ;  but  the  matter  i.s  not  worth  cliscus.sing. 


318  THE    APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.        [Chap. 

Mary  the  mother  of  the  Lord,  whom  John  names  Cleophae, 
either  from  the  father  or  the  family  of  the  clan  or  some  other 
cause.  Mary  Salome  is  called  Salome  either  from  her  husband 
or  her  village;  some  say  that  she  was  the  same  as  the  wife 
of  Cleophas,  because  she  had  two  husbands/^  The  informa- 
tion of  this  fragment,  first  published  by  Grabe,  Spic.  tom.i. 
p.  34,  is  interesting,  if  we  could  but  depend  on  it.  Un- 
fortunately, there  is  no  testimony  to  its  genuineness  but  the 
inscription  "  Pa])ia.''''  The  statements  made  here,  as  Routh 
remarks,  differ  from  those  of  Epiphanius,  Hseres.  78.  num. 
et  8,  and  the  Chronicle  of  Hippolytus  Thebanus  in  a 
Bodleian  MS. 

The  collectors  of  the  fragments  of  Papias  adduce  several 
other  very  questionable  quotations  from  Papias — one  especially 
from  Andreas  Caesariensis,  who  says  that  Papias  knew  the 
Revelation  of  John.  The  date  of  this  Andreas  is  unknown ; 
Pearson  supposes  him  to  have  flourished  in  the  fifth  century ""; 
but  even  were  he  better  known,  his  assertion  is  not  to  be 
relied  on,  though  not  unlikely  in  itself. 

Many  scholars  have  thought  that  Papias  was  often  the 
source  from  which  Irenaeus  derived  the  sayings  of  elders 
which  he  quotes  anonymously.  Nothing  positive  can  be 
made  of  such  a  guess,  and  the  matter,  besides,  belongs  more 
to  our  discussion  of  Irenseus  than  of  Papias. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  fragments  of  Papias  to  enable  us 
to  speak  with  regard  to  his  theology^.  He  may  have  been 
a  Jewish-Christian,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof. 
The  only  two  circumstances  which  can  be  adduced  to  give 
a  colour  to  this  supposition  are,  that  he  concerns  himself 
with  the  details  of  Christ^s  earthly  life,  and  that  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  mentioned  PauFs  \\Titings.  He  may, 
however,  have  quoted  Paul  for  all  that  we  know,  and  even 
if  he  did  not,  his  subject  was  Christ's  sayings.  And  surely 
it  was  no  mean  curiosity  that  concentrated  itself  on  the  truths 

'  Vind.  Ign.  Pars  I.  c.  10. 

'  On  Papias's  testimony  to  the  New  Testament  there  is  a  very  able  chapter 
in  Westcott's  HLstorj'  of  the  Canon,  p.  76  fF. 


VI.]  PAPiAS.  :;i<> 

to  which  the  Sou  of  God  had  given  utterauce.  Nor  would 
it  be  auy  disparagement  to  Papias  it'  he  had  deemed  them 
of  far  greater  importance  than  those  of  Paul. 

The  work  of  Papias  was  extant  in  the  time  of  Jerome*. 
Perhaps  it  may  yet  be  recovered,  for  some  work  with 
the  name  of  Papias  is  mentioned  thrice  in  the  catalogue  of 
the  library  of  the  Benedictine  Monastery  of  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  contained  in  a  Cottonian  MS.  written  in  the  end 
of  the  thirteenth  or  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century"; 
and,  according  to  Menard,  the  words  "  I  found  the  book  of 
Papias  on  the  Words  of  the  Lord"*^  are  contained  in  an  in- 
ventory of  the  property  of  the  Church  of  Nismes,  prepared 
about  1218". 

The  fragments  of  Papias  are  given  in  Halloix,  Grabe, 
Gallandi,  Migne,  and  Routh. 

*  Epistol.  ad  Licin.  28,  p.  196,  torn,  i.,  ed.  Frob.  Basil.  1526. 

"  Memoirs  of  Libraries,  by  Edward  Edwards,  Lend.  1859,  vol.  i.  pp. 
122-235.  The  catalogue  gives  nothing  but  the  name  Papias.  The  numbers 
are  234,  267,  and  556. 

'^  See  Fabricii  Bibl.  Graec.  vol.  vii.'p.  153,  Harless  ;  and  Migne,  Patrolog. 
Curs.  Grajc.  Sen,  vol.  v.  p.  1254. 


/A 


2^^  S'e^-^l