§ 34, note 10),2 to whom, in later times, many writings were falsely ascribed,3 and Hermas, whose work (ó noμýv)1 inculcates moral precepts in visions and parables, in order to promote the

activity has commenced (xiii. 13, 43, Paul and Barnabas). The epistle was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, according to chapters iv. and xvi.; and the ancient testimony of Clement, that Barnabas was the author, can not be derived from a partiality of the Alexandrian in favor of a production of kindred spirit, because the millennarianism of the letter (c. 15) could not have pleased the Alexandrian, and besides, all the interpretations do not agree with Clement, who in his Paedag. ii. p. 221 refutes one of them, and in his Stromata, ii. p. 464 prefers another view of Psalm i. 1 to that given in the epistle before us.

2 His epistle to the Corinthians, which was usually read in the religious assemblies at Corinth, as early as the second century (Dionys. Corinth. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23, 6. Iren. iii. 3), is called in question without reason by Semler (histor. Einleit. zu Baumgarten's Unters. theol. Streitigkeiten. Bd. 2. S. 16) and Ammon (Leben Jesu, i. 33), but it has been looked upon as interpolated, by H. Bignon, Ed. Bernard, H. Burton, Jo. Clericus (see Patrum apost. Cotelerii ed. Clerici, ii. p. 133, 478, 482, and in the notes to the letter}, Ittig, Mosheim, and Neander. It seems to belong to the end of the first century. In opposition to Schenkel (theol. Studien und Krit. 1841, i. 65), who places it between 64 and 70, see Schliemann's Clementinen, p. 409. The so-called second epistle, a mere fragment, is spurious (Euseb. iii. 38). These two letters, preserved only in the Cod. Alexand., were first published by Patricius Junius, Oxon. 1633. 4to, and his incorrect text has been repeated in most editions. After a careful comparison of the MS., a more correct text was given first of all by Henr. Wotton, Cantabr. 1718.

3 Namely, 1. Two letters in the Syriac language, see below § 73, note 5. 2. Constitutiones and Canones apostolorum, see § 67, note 3. 3. Recognitiones Clementis and Clementina, see § 58.

4 Partly an imitation of the 4th book of Ezra (see § 31, note 3, comp. Jachmann, p. 63), it professes to be a writing of the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. 14 (lib. i. vis. ii. c. 4), and is quoted as scripture even by Irenaeus, iv. 3. When the opposition to Montanism began in the west toward the close of the second century (see below § 59), it lost its reputation there with those who were inclined to Montanist views, because it allowed a repentance once after baptism, and with the opponents of Montanism it fell into disrepute, on account of its apocalyptic form (Tertull. de Pudic. c. 10: Cederem tibi, si scriptura pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum, etiam vestrarum, inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur. C. 2: Ille apocryphus pastor moechorum), and now it is declared by the Fragmentum de canone in Muratorii Antiquitt. Ital. iii. 853: Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. This assumption, which Irenaeus can not have known, became afterward the usual one in the west. On the contrary, the work remained in repute among the Alexandrians, and is cited by Clement of Alex. and Origen frequently, by Athanasius several times as an authority (see Jachmann, p. 37). Origenes in Ep. ad Rom. comm. lib. x. c. 31: Puto tamen, quod Hermas, iste (Rom. xvi. 15) sit scriptor libelli istius, qui Pastor appellatur, quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et, ut puto, divinitus inspirata. But when in later times the Arians appealed to it (Athanasii Epist. ad Afros in Opp. i. ii. 895) its reputation sank in the Greek church also. Hieronymus in Catal. c. 10: Herman, cujus apostolus Paulus ad Romanos scribens meminit-asserunt auctorum esse libri, qui appellatur Pastor, et apud quasdam Graeciae ecclesias etiam publice legitur. Revera utilis liber, multique de eo scriptorum veterum usurpavere testimonia, sed apud Latinos paene ignotus est. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung Joh. p. 141, places it in the middle of the second century, Jachmann der Hirte des Hermas, Königsb. 1835, in the beginning of it, and regards the Hermas of Paul as the author.

completeness of the church.

The disciples of John are Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (see § 33, note 8),5 Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna († 167),° and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis," of whose writings

5 Seven epistles ad Smyrnaeos, ad Polycarpum, ad Ephesios, ad Magnesios, ad Philadelphienses, ad Trallianos, ad Romanos (Polycarp Ep. c. 13, mentions the epistles of Ignatius in general, Iren. v. 28 cites that to the Romans, Origenes prol. in Cant. Cant. and Hom. vi. in Lucam those to the Romans and Ephesians; Eusebius, iii. 36 mentions all the seven) are extant in a longer and in a shorter recension. (The latter was first published by Is. Vossius, at Amstel. 1649. 4to.) The controversy concerning their genuineness was interwoven with that respecting the origin of Episcopacy. In the older literature, which is rich in notices of the epistles, the chief work in favor of the authenticity is: Jo. Pearson. Vindiciae epistol. S. Ignatii. Cantabr. 1672. 4. The leading work against the authenticity is: Jo. Dallaeus de scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur. Genev. 1666. 4. Recently Rothe (Anfänge p. 715) defended the authenticity. But in opposition to him, Baur (über die Ursprung des Episkopats, S. 148, ff.) asserted that those letters were composed at Rome in the second half of the second century, on the side of the pure Pauline Christianity against the Petrine Judaizing tendency which had found expression in the Clementines. Dr. J. E. Huther again defended the authenticity with reference to these doubts (Illgen's Zeitschrift für die histor. Theol. 1841, iv. 1). As regards the two recensions, W. Whiston (Primitive Christianity revived. Lond. 1711) is the only person who has declared the longer to be the original one; while Dr, F. K. Maier (theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836. ii. 340) is of opinion that it comes much nearer the original text. Against the latter see Rothe, 1. c. p. 739, and Arndt (theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1839. i. 136). J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke's Magazin. iii. 91) thought that both recensions arose from a thorough revision of the genuine text, but yet he admitted (in his Biblioth. für Kritik. u. Exegese d. N. T. ii. 29) that the shorter comes nearest to the genuine text. Netz (theol. Stud. u. Kritik. 1835. iv. 881) has repeated the same opinion. Against him see Arndt (theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1839. i. 742). The latest investigations have all turned out in favor of the shorter recension (see Rothe, Arndt, Huther, ll. cc. F. A. Chr. Düsterdieck, quae de Ignatianarum epistolarum authentia, duorumque textuum ratione et dignitate hucusque prolatae sunt sententiae enarrantur et dijudicantur. Got tingae. 1843. 4. Worthy of attention are the remarks of Arndt, S. 139, respecting the necessity of revising the text of the shorter recension after the best MSS. and other existing critical helps. Eight other pretended letters of Ignatius are certainly spurious. [See particularly "The ancient Syriac version of the epistles of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans; together with extracts from his epistles collected from the writings of Severus of Antioch, Timotheus of Alexandria, and others. Edited with an English translation and notes. Also the Greek text of these three epistles, corrected according to the authority of the Syriac version. By William Cureton, M.A., London. 1845. 8vo.

6 Epist. ad Philippenses, mentioned so early as by Irenaeus, iii. 3 (ap. Euseb. iv. 14, 3), frequently, however, controverted by the opponents of the Ignatian epistles, doubted of by Semler and Rössler, and recently declared to be spurious by Schwegler (der Montanismus und d. Christl. Kirche. Tübingen. 1841. S. 260). On the other side, Schliemann's Clementinen, S. 418.

7 Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς, Iren. v. 33, is said to have suffered martyrdom in 163, in Pergamus (Chronic. pasch. ed. Bonn. i. 481), wrote λoyiwv Kupiak☎v ¿čnуnois; fragments in Grabe, ii. p. 26. Routh, i. p. 1. In Euseb. H. E. iii. 36, he is called: ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος, καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων (respecting the omission of these words in some MSS. after Rufin's example, see Kimmel de Rufino, p. 236). But because he expressed very gross millennarianism in his writings (although that doctrine was older), Eusebius passes a very severe judgment upon him, H. E. iii. 39 : Χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης-σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν

nothing but fragments are extant. The compositions attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts xvii. 34) are spurious.

§ 36.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THIS PERIOD.

8

While the stricter party of Jewish Christians maintained the Jewish particularism, and therefore constantly indeavored to impose on the Gentile Christians the observance of the Mosaic law,1 that speculation which strove to comprehend Christianity in its peculiar nature was always becoming more powerful in other quarters. Inasmuch as a speculative basis was not yet firmly established, great freedom was allowed for it; but as soon as it trenched upon the moral and religious interests of Christianity, it was resisted, and not till then. It was principally with the wonderful person of Christ, which it endeavored to understand, that speculation occupied itself. Even here the most different tendencies were indulged in, as long as they left unimpaired the divine and human in Christ, by the union of which the atoning and model character of the life of Jesus was necessarily constituted. Hence, the Shepherd of Hermas, with its peculiar Christology, gave no offense.3 On the contrary, the doctrine of

2

νοῦν.—πλὴν καὶ τοῖς μετ' αὐτὸν πλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δόξης παραίτιος γέγονεὥσπερ οὖν Εἰρηναίῳ κ. τ. λ. With what right Eusebius, who in his Chronicon (Olymp. 220) allows Papias without hesitation to have been a disciple of the apostle John, declares in this work that he was only the pupil of a certain presbyter John, is examined by Olshausen, die Echtheit der vier kanon. Evangelien. Königsb. 1823. S. 224, ff.

8 Respecting them see below § 110, note 4.

1 Against this party is directed Epist. Barnabae, c. 1–16.

2 Thus an error which threatened to turn Christian liberty into licence is combated in the Epistle of Jude, which was written after the destruction of Jerusalem (Credner's Einl. in d. N. T. i. ii. 611), and in the 2d Epistle of Peter, which is an imitation of that of Jude (Credner, i. ii. 650). The false teachers mentioned in the latter epistle denied the return of Christ and the judgment (2 Peter iii. 3, ff.).

3 Hermae Pastor, iii. 5, 5: Filius Spiritus sanctus est. iii. 9, 1: Spiritus filius Dei est. iii. 9, 12: Filius Dei omni creatura antiquior est, ita ut in consilio patri suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam. C. 14: Nomen filii Dei magnum et immensum est, et totus ab eo sustentatur orbis. This spirit dwells in men, i. 5, 1: Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κατοικοῦν ἐν σoí. iii. 5, 6: Accipiet mercedem omne corpus purum ac sine macula repertum, in quo habitandi gratia constitutus fuerit Spiritus sanctus. The Holy Spirit is the essence of ali virtues, which, iii. 9, 13, are designated under the title of virgins, and even called Spiritus sancti: non aliter homo potest in regnum Dei intrare, nisi hae (virgines) induerint eum

'

4

the Docetae was rejected, which represented Christ's humanity as a mere appearance, in the way that the Jews conceived of the manifestations of angels (dokηrai). In the mean time, however, speculation relative to the higher nature of Christ and the essence of Christianity, attached itself to the more general questions respecting the creation of the world and the origin of evil. Here the Alexandrine Jewish philosophy presented itself as a pattern. The idea of the λóyoç in particular was borrowed from it for the purpose of explaining the higher nature of Christ." John followed this speculation in his gospel, in order to divert it from the region of a fruitless hyper-naturalism into a consideration of the moral efficacy of the Logos." It went astray, how

veste sua. Quicunque nomen filii Dei portat, harum quoque nomina portare debet: nam et Filius nomina portat earum. Respecting the person of Christ, iii. 5, 2: A master intrusts a faithful servant with the care of a vineyard, praecipiens, ut vitibus jungeret palos. The servant does for him still more than he had been ordered. The master consults about rewarding him adhibito filio, quem carum et haeredem habebat, et amicis, quos in consilio advocabat, and concludes: volo eum filio meo facere cohaeredem. The explanation, c. 5: The master is God, Filius autem Spiritus sanctus est: servus vero, ille Filius Dei est. Vinea autem populus est, quem servat ipse. Pali vero Nuncii (angels) sunt, qui a Domino praepositi sunt ad continendum populum ejus. C. 6: Quare autem Dominus in consilio adhibuerit Filium de haereditate et bonos Angelos? Quia Nuncius (Christ) audit illum Spiritum sanctum, qui infusus est omnium primus, in corpore, in quo habitaret Deus. Cum igitur corpus illud paruisset omni tempore Spiritui sancto; placuit Deo--ut et huic corpori-locus aliquis consistendi daretur, ne videretur mercedem servitutis suae perdidisse. A useful application, c. 7: Corpus hoc tuum custodi mundum atque purum; ut Spiritus ille qui inhabitabat in eo, testimonium referat illi, et tecum fuisse judicetur. The eternal Son of God is here the Holy Spirit, and there is no account of a personal union of him with the man Jesus. Against Jachmann Hirte des Hermas, S. 70, and Schliemann Clementinen, S. 423, who wish to defend the orthodoxy of Hermas, see Baur Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. 134.

4 Later names: Phantasiastae, Phantasiodocetae, Opinarii. Perhaps even 1 Joh. iv. 2; 2 Joh. 7 (see Lücke's Comm. zu Johannes, 2te Aufl. iii. 66). Distinctly and often in Ignatius ad Ephes. vii. 18, ad Trallianos ix. 10, ad Smyrn. 1-8: 'Inoovv tò dokeïv (δοκήσει, φαντασία) πεπονθέναι, and in the Evang. Petri (Serapion apud Euseb. vi. 12). Cf. Hieronymus adv. Luciferianos (ed. Martian. tom. iv. p. ii. p. 304): Apostolis adhuc in saeculo superstitibus, adhuc apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini corpus asserebatur. So thought the Jews about the appearances of angels, Tob. xii. 19. Philo de Abrah. p. 366 : Τεράστιον δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ πεινῶντας πεινώντων, καὶ μὴ ἐσθίοντας ¿σÐióνтwv пaρéxeiv pavтaoíav. (Comp. Neander's gnostische Systeme, S. 23.) Josephus Antt. i. 11, 2, ν. 6, 2 : Φαντάσματος δ' αὐτῷ (Gideoni) παραστάντος νεανίσκου μορφῇ. The church fathers had the very same idea of the appearances of angels, comp. Keilii opusc. ed. Goldhorn ii. 548. H. A. Niemeyer comm. de Docetis. Halae, 1823. 4.

5 So also in the κýρvyμa Пléтpov. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 427, Credner's Beiträge zur Einl. in die bibl. Schriften, i. 354.

• Lücke's Comm. über d. Evangel. d. Johannes. 3te Aufl. i. 202. C. L. W. Grimm de Joanneae christologiae indole Paulinae comparata. Lips. 1833. 8. K. Frommann's der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in his Verhältnisse zur gesammten biblisch-christl. Lehre. Leipzig, 1839. 8. K. R. Köstlin's Lehrbegriff des Evang u. der Briefe Johannis. Berlin, 1843. 8.

ever, even at that time, falling into that false Gnosis which denies the fundamental principles of Christianity, and which the apostle Paul had already predicted in its germs. The first Christian-Gnostic system was that of Cerinthus, in which, however, the Gnosis did not yet attain a consistent development, but was obliged to accommodate itself to many Jewish opinions."

7 According to him, the God of the Jews (nulovpyóc) is separated from the highest God by a series of Aeons, and the highest God was first revealed by the Aeon Christ. The Mosaic law, however, must be observed, a resurrection and thousand years' reign be expected. J. E. Ch. Schmidt Cerinth ein judaisirender Christ, in his Bibliothek fur Kritik u. Exegese des N. T. i. 181. H. E. G. Paulus historia Cerinthi in his Introductionis in N. T. capita selectiora. Jenae. 1799. 8. Neander's Kirchengesch. 2te Aufl. i. ii. 683.

VOL. I.—8