§ 35.

APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

SS. Patrum, qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, opera ed. J. B. Cotelerius, Paris 1672, recud. curavit J. Clericus, ed. 2. Amst. 1724, 2 voll. fol. SS. Patrum apostolic. opera genuina, ed. Rich. Russel, Lond. 1746, 2 voll. 8. S. Clementis Rom., S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi, patrum apostt. quae supersunt. Accedunt S. Ignatii et S. Polycarpi martyria. Ad fidem codd. rec. adnotationibus illustravit, indicibus instruxit Guil. Jacobson, 2 tomi, Oxon. 1838, ed. 2, 1840, 8. Patrum apostt. opera (genuina). Textum recognovit, brevi adnotatione instruxit, et in usum praell. acadd. ed. C. J. Hefele, Tubingae 1839, ed. 2, 1843.

Apostolic fathers is a title given to those who were the immediate and genuine disciples of the apostles, and in a stricter sense, to such of them as have left works behind. To the school of Paul belong Barnabas (comp. § 26)' Clement of Rome,

The epistle of Barnabas, which was regarded even by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome, as genuine, remained entirely unknown till after Usher's edition had been burnt in the printing-office at Oxford, 1643. It was first published by Hugo Menardus, Paris 1645, 4to. and with a corrected text by Iss. Vossius appended to the epistles of Ignatius, Amstel. 1646, 4to. For a long time the predominant opinion was against its authenticity, see especially Tentzel ad Hieron. catal. cap. 6, in Fabricii bibl. eccles. p. 38 ss. Yet Isaac Vossius, Cave, Grynaeus, Gallandius, declared it genuine. Since J. E. Chr. Schmidt, K. G. 437 Münscher Dogmengesch. i. 111, Rosenmüller hist. interpret. libb. sacr. i. 42, decided in its favour, this became almost the prevailing opinion, and has been defended with ingenuity, particularly by D. E. Henke de epistolae quae Barnabae tribuitur authentia, Jenae 1827, 8vo; Bleek Brief a. d. Hebräer, i. 416; and J. Chr. Rördam comm. de authentia epist. Barnabae, Partic. I. Hafn. 1828, 8vo. Gu. H. Haverkorn van Rysewyk diss. de Barnaba, Arnhemiae 1835, 8vo, has also declared in favour of the genuineness. Recently, however, certain important voices have been raised again in opposition to the epistle, as Neander (K. G. i. ii. 1133), Twesten (Dogmatik, i. 104), Ullmann (theol. Studien u. Kritiken, i. ii. 382), and Hug (Zeitschrift für d. Geistlichkeit d. Erzbisth Freiburg. ii. 132 ff.; iii. 208 ff.). Dan. Schenkel (über d. Brief d. Barn. in d. theol. Stud. u. Kritik. 1837, iii. 652) believes that § 1-6, 13, 14, 17, constitute the genuine original letter, and that § 7-12, 15, 16, were afterwards inserted by a therapeutic Jewish Christian. On the other hand, C. J. Hefele, in the Tübing. theol. Quartalschr. 1839, i. 50, affirms the integrity of the epistle, but denies the authenticity of it in the work entitled, "das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs neue untersucht,

(comp. § 34, note 10),7 to whom in later times many writings were falsely ascribed, and Hermas, whose work (4 übersetzt und erklärt, Tübingen 1840, 8."-The chief ground urged against the genuineness, that the absurd mystical mode of interpretation could not have proceeded from a companion of the apostle Paul, seems to me untenable. That Barnabas was not a man of spiritual consequence, is clear even from the Acts of the apostles. There he is at first the more prominent by virtue of his apostolic commission, in company with Paul (Acts xi. 22; xii. 2. Barnabas and Saul), but he soon falls entirely into the background behind Paul, after a freer sphere of 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, cannot be derived from a partiality of the Alexandrian in favour 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 fourth 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 towards the end 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 apocrvpha et falsa judicaretur, c. 2: ille

inculcates moral precepts in visions and parables, in order to promote the completeness of the church. The disciples of John are Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, (see § 33, note 8),5 Folycarp, 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 cannot have known, became afterwards 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). Origines in Ep. ad Rom. comm. lib. x. c. 31: Puto tamen, quod Hermas, iste (Rom. xvi. 14) 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 auctorem 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.

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, Origines prol. in cant. cant. and Hom. vi. in Lucan 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 favour 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 these letters were composed at Rome in the second half of the second century, on the side of the pure Pauline Christianity against the Petrine Judaising 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 d. 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.

bishop of Smyrna, († 167) and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis," of whose writings nothing but fragments are extant. The compositions attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts xvii. 34) are spurious.8

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 favour of the shorter recension (see Rothe, Arndt, Huther, .l. cc. ́F. A. Chr. Düsterdieck, quae de Ignatianarum epistolarum authentia, duorumque textuum ratione et dignitate hucusque prolatae sunt sententiae enarrantur et dijudicantur. Gottingae 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 cri tical helps. Eight other pretended letters of Ignatius are certainly spu rious. [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 (de Montanismus und. d. christl. Kirche, Tübingen 1841, S. 260). On the other side, Schliemann's Clementinen, S. 418.

7 Ιωάννου 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 kupiakŵv ¿¿ýynois, fragments in Grabe, ii. p. 26. Routh, i. p. 1. In Euseb. h. e. iii. 36 he is called: avǹp Tà távta 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 νοῦν.— πλὴν καὶ τοῖς μετ ̓ αὐτὸν πλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δόξης παραίτιος γέγονε—ὥσπερ ουν 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 ft. 8 Respecting them see below § 110, note 4.

I

§ 36.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THIS PERIOD.

While the stricter party of Jewish Christians maintained the Jewish prejudices, and therefore constantly endeavoured to impose on the Gentile Christians the observance of the Mosaic law, 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 is principally with the wonderful person of Christ, which it endeavoured to understand, that speculation fatigued 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 typical character of the life of Jesus was necessarily constituted. Hence, the shepherd of Hermas with its peculiar christology gave no offence.3 On the contrary, the doc

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

2 Thus an error which threatened to turn Christian liberty into impudence 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 σοί. 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 all 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) induerent eum 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 entrusts 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.