i ^K ^4. BR 1705 .D67 1874 v.l Donaldson, James, 1831-1915 The apostolical fathers ■■\-'':>t THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS A CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF THEIR GENUINE WRITINGS AND OF THEIR DOCTRINES. JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. ^il^&-^ MACMILLAN AND CO. 1874. OXFORD: E. PICKARD HALL AND J. H. STACY, PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. Y(\b?EiiiV Of PBIITCETOIT if TO JOHN STUART BLACKIE, PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGn, THIS BOOK FROM FEELINGS OF AFFECTION, GRATITUDE, AND ADMIRATION, BY HIS OLD PUPIL, THE AUTHOR. NOTE. This book was published in 1864 as the first volume of a ' Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council/ The intention was to carry down the history continuously to the time of Eusebius, and this intention has not been abandoned. But as the writers can be sometimes grouped more easily according to subject or locality than according to time, it is deemed advisable to publish the history of each group separately. The Introduction in the present volume serves as an Introduction to the whole period. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. Advantages of the Study of Early Christian Literature. Object of the work, — Iiuportauce of the subject. — Nature of the work. — Criticism of literatux-e. — CriticLsin of opinions. — Dogma. — Use for present age Early writers as witnesses. — As interpreters of the New Testament. — As philosophers. — Of great use to the classical scholar. — A part of classical scholarship, page 3. CHAPTER II, External Testimony. The only proper evidence contemporary. — The character of the witnesses. — The critical powers of the ancients. — Their treatment of external testimony. — External witnesses. — Eusebius. — Jerome. — Historians of the Church. — Historians of Heresies. — Chroniclers. — Photius, p. 12. CHAPTER III. Internal Evidence. Nature of internal evidence. — Number of dubious and anonymous works in first three centuries. — Forgeries. — Interpolations, — Main principle of internal evidence. — Effects of lapse of time. — Every age produces changes. — Illustrated in the case of Eusebius, p. 26. CHAPTER IV. Literature of the Subject. Roman Catholic books.— Greek Church, — Tone of Roman Catholic writers. — Protestant writers. — Collections of the Fathers. — Translations. — Lexicons, p, 34. CHAPTER V, Tlie TiiUngen School. Baur.— Hegel,— Disregard of historical evidence. — Schwegler's Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. — Criticism of the School, p. 45. CHAPTER VI. Early Christian Theology. Mode of Treatment. Mode of presentation. — Temptations in the treatment of doctruies, — The starting-point. — Oral Christianity. — Its main truths, — No system. — Its un- speculative character acknowledged by various writers. — Greater precision as history advances. — The lesson which the history of dogma teaches, p. 57. CHAPTER VII. Historical Survey of the Mode of Treatment. Roman Catholic writers. — Some refuse to discuss the subject, — The re.st anxious to find the doctrines of the Fathers in entire agreement with their own, — Petavius, — Newman, — Dollinger. — Protestant WTiters took their stand on the Scriptures, — Daille, — Milton. — Evangelical School, — Goode, — Isaac Taylor, — Dr, W, L, Alexander. — The theology of the Fathers an obstacle. — Dr. Bennet, — Vaughan, — Stoughton. — Anti-Romanists, — Scultetus, — Forbes of Corse. — English Church, — Closely allied in doctrine to the early writers, — Waterland, — Blunt, — Bull, — Burton. — Defenders of the Faith, — Horsley, — Jamieson, — Lord Hailes, — Barbeyrac, — Whiston,— Lardner. — Progress of the study. — Mosheim, — Semler, — Schleiermacher, — Ncander, — Bunsen, — Miss Cornwallis, — Maurice, — Milnian, — Da\-idson, — Westcott. — The Tubingen School, p. 67. CONTENTS. Book I. The Apostolical Fathers. CHAPTER I. Introduction. The name ApostolicaL — The works, — Their character. — Deal with the inner workings of the Church. — Show little or nothing of the contact with, heathenism, philosophy, and heresy. — Are pervaded by deep piety. — The doctrines are stated in a broad, general manner. — Opinions in regard to their theology. — Literature, loi. CHAPTER II. Clemens Romanm : Life. Bishop in the Church in Rome. — The date. — His place in the line of bishops. — Is he the person mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians? — Death of Clemens. — His nation ah ty, p. 113. The Writings of Clemens. The Epistle to the Corinthians. — Its author- ship. — Its genuineness. — Its incompleteness. — Interpolations. — Date of the letter Circumstances in which the letter was written. — Character of the letter. — Opinions on its theology. — Abstract of the letter. — Other writings ascribed to Clemens. — Epistle to the Hebrews. — Literature. — Theology. — God. — Christ. — The Holy Spirit,— The Trinity.— Angels.— Man.— His original state. — Salvation. — The Church. — Its office bearers and rites. — Future state. — The Scriptures. — Morality, p. 124. CHAPTER III. Polycarp : Life. The authorities. — Irenaeus.— Eusebius. — Jerome. — Polycarp's visit to Rome. — -Paschal controversy. — The Martyrium, — Its genuineness to be determined by internal testimony. — The question at issue. — Claims to be written by eye-witnesses. — The claim discussed. — The date of the Martj^rium. — Interpolations. — The narrative given in it. — Date of Polycarp, p. 191. TJie Writings of Polycarp. The letter. — Its genuineness. — Interpola- tions. — iHis other letters. — The object of the letter. — Its character. — Abstract. — The Doctrines of the letter. — God. — Christ. — Holy Spirit.— Angels. — Sin. — Salvation. — The Church. — Future State, — Scriptures. — Morality. — Literature, p. 224. CHAPTER IV. The Epistle of Barnabas. Its authorship.— External testimony in favour of Barnabas the Apostle. — The internal evidence strongly against the authorship of Barnabas. — Its conception of Judaism. — Mistakes in regard to Judaism. — Other arguments. — To whom was the letter addressed? — Locality of the writer. — The date of the letter. — Object of the letter. — Its integrity. — Opinions on its theology. — Abstract. — Doctrines. — God. — Christ. — The Holy Spirit. — Angels.— Man. — The , Church. — Future State. — The Scriptures. — Morality. — Literature, p. 248. CHAPTER V. TJie Pastor of Hermas. Its authorship. — External testimony. — Regarded as inspired. Hermas the brother of Pius.— Internal evidence. — Account of Hermas in the book. — His position in the Church. — Date of the work. — Place of composition. — Theology of the work. — Its character and object. — Abstract. — Doctrines. — God. — Christ. — Holy Spirit. — Angels. — Man. — Conduct of Christians. — The Church. — Future State. — Scriptures. — Literature. — The Sinaitic Codex, p. 318. CHAPTER VI. Papias: Life. Writings.— Doctrines.— Editions, p. 393- INDEX, p. 403. INTRODUCTION. VOL. I. 'prafro^'^^, ^nm. PEIEe-S.TOIT CHAPTER I. ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. JLHIS 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 investigate 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 prepares the way for a full consideration of the mode in which Christian theology was developed. Such studies as these ought not to require any de- fence 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 im- portance to find out what that message is. Moreover it is ever a valuable exercise of the mind, to throw B 2 4 INTRODUCTION. chap. oneself into modes of thought and feeling widely dif- ferent 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 unprejudiced study of early Christian literature. The point from which we start is the most momentous in the world^s history. The fact which we have to con- sider is the greatest. Even to the most callous mind Christianity must appear a movement of gigantic im- portance. The student of early Christian literature traces this great moral movement in the words of those who were influenced by it. He as it were speaks with those who felt the first waves of Christ's influence; and he examines their modes of thought that he may see how Christ's Gospel changed their whole beings and how in consequence they worked in and on the world. At the same time he has to rid himself of most of his modern associations. He has to transport himself into a time when the very modes of conception and expres- sion were widely diflTerent from those of this age, and he has to realize a thousand influences which acted most powerfully on them, but which Lave 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 sym- pathies will flow largely with most divisions of the present Christian Church, however diverse on some points their beliefs. A work like the present, as however being merely an INTRODUCTION. introduction to this profitable study, is necessarily de- fective 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 many 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 they lived and worked. A man's his- tory 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, intellectual, and political features of the ages in which the Church is depicted as living and acting^. Yet no satisfactory History of the Church, either by itself or as working amidst heathenism^ is possible with- out such preliminary works as the present. Literary criticism is the foundation on which ecclesiastical histo- ries 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 » See Dean Stanley's Introductory Lectures, first published separately, and now prefixed to his History of the Eastern Church. 6 INTRODUCTION. chap. in baseless statements and serious misrepresentations. Even those writers who have made careful investigations, as Mosheim and Neander, have often omitted to state the reasons of their conclusions^ and the reader is left at the mercy of the historian. Still more necessary is it that we should have exact information as to the opinions of the early Christian writers. Here nothing but the utmost care and im- partiality will enable us to reach the truth. And here the misconceptions and mistakes that prevail are innu- merable, 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;, with- out exaggeration or distortion, what they thought. I have occasionally attempted to throw light on tlie mode in which doctrines were developed. Let not the reader however be misled by this word " developed." A state- ment 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 assi- milating 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 of it is usually general, 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 '' See SirW. Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, vol. ii, p. 149. INTRODUCTION. 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 state- ment 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 wrong, 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 particular 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. Especially 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 Chris- tianity. There is one advantage which some will expect from a study of early Christian theology in regard to which they will be disappointed. 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 8 INTRODUCTION. chap. which agitate one age are never precisely the same as those which agitate another ^. They may be fundament- ally the same ; but the circumstances in which they are taken up are so widely different^ that they require dif- ferent solutions. Thus the question of inspiration as it presents itself to us, never so presented itself to any previous generation. In former times there was not the same strictness in regard to historical criticism ; there was a vast amount of carelessness in regard to textual criticism ; there was not the same desire for uniformity in history as in nature ; there was not the same chrono- logical accuracy ; and many other such circumstances, the results of the civilization and thought of this and past centuries, unite to present this question of Inspi- ration in a light different from that in which it ap- peared 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 writers are adduced as witnesses to facts. Here we have to deal with them as vouchers for the statements they make. And hence the vast importance of a critical study of early Christian writings 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 c Hegel has put this well in his Philosophy of History : *' Jede Zeit hat so eigenthiimliche Umstande, ist ein so individueller Zustand, dass in ihm aus ihm selbst entschieden warden inuss, und allein ent- schieden werden kann." (p. 9.) INTRODUCTION. know the early Christian writers well, and we must ascertain their characters. We may also expect some light from them in the in- terpretation 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. It is absurd therefore to speak of the authority 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 thoughts of one generation propagate themselves through the next, we prepare ourselves for an accurate interpre- tation of the New Testament by careful interpretation of the writers that followed those of the New Testa- ment, and by a thorough knowledge of their modes of thought. Besides the interest which the writings of the early Christians 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 philosophical 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 cha- racter 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 1 INTRO D UCTION. chap. times has received and is receiving a good deal of atten- tion from modern philosophers^. A knowledge of the early Christian writers is also of great importance to the scholar. The works of Clemens Alexandrinus are a storehouse of fragments of the Greek comic writers. They also contain curious information with regard 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 in- valuable. They were enabled from their position to see many things which heathens never thought of ob- serving. We also derive from them, and especially from Ter- tullian and Clemens Alexandrinus, much information in regard to heathen manners and customs. We have sometimes important literary notices in them; and in one of them, Tatian, considerable light is thrown on the history of ancient art. But a farther claim on the scholar's attention may be made for these Christian writings. Scholarship aims at entering into the thoughts and realizing the lives of the men of antiquity, and from this point of view the distinction between pagan and Christian vanishes. The Christian writings of the second and third centuries are as much in the province of the scholar as Plutarch and Lucian, Athenseus and Dion Cassius, Tacitus and ^ There are three works especially devoted to the philosophy of the Fathers : volume fifth of Ritter's Geschichte der Philosophic ; A. Stockl's Geschichte der Philosophic der patristischen Zeit, Wiirz- burg, a Roman Catholic vpork ; and Die Philosophie der Kirchenvater, von Dr. Johannes Huber, MUnchen 1859. A good account is also given in Ueberweg : Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin 1864, and Erdmann : Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, Berlin 1866. I. IXTRODUCTIOX. 11 Juvenal. Christianity grew up from the midst of heathenism, the interaction between the two was strong and powerful, and no continuous or accurate explanation of the one can be given without a close study of the other. The Christian writings therefore form an essen- tial portion of the scholar's work, and accordingly the best histories of Latin and Greek literature, Bahr, Teuifel, Bernhard}', Miiller and Donaldson, take the Christian writers within the scope of their criticism. • 1 2 INTROD UCTION. chap. CHAPTER II. PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM — EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. iN this and the following chapters we state the main principles of our criticism. We ascertain the genuine- ness 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 Shepherd. 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. The uncertainty which thus attaches to even proper historical statements, must not drive -us into complete unbelief. We receive the statement's of contemporaries as true, unless there is some reason to look upon them as false. We do not hold these state- ments 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 in- II. INTRODUCTION. 13 contestable evidence. As we mcive away from the particular period into testimony of a later period, we are not warranted in rejecting it entirely, for the testi- mony of a later period may be, and generally is, the testimony of contemporaries handed down from one generation to another. But we must be more cautious. We have now to take into account the exaggerations and distortions which result from tbe passiige of a thought or statement through various minds. We must remember the marvellous proneness of human beings to mistake one thing for another, especially when they are under any influence 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 witnesses. 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 wit- nesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary ; though a con- a Various writers have devised and arranged canons, in order to de- termine the genuineness or spuriousness of books. For a list, see W'alchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. ?58. 1 4 I NT ROD UCTION. chap. temporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless therefore an historical account can be traced by probable proof to the testimony of contemporaries, the first con- dition of historical credibility fails^." The forgetfulness of this principle has retarded the ascertainment 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 defective by the help of statements that have not the shadow of historical evi- dence in their favour. The various attempts at a history of early Christian literature, which we shall notice sub- sequently, all signally fail in carrying out this first and essential principle of historical evidence. Before we can deal satisfactorily with evidence in a particular case, we must know the character of the wit- nesses. I deem it therefore appropriate to take 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 Christian era anything like an ad- herence to the principles of modern historical criticism. In individual cases, where controversy and its frequent concomitant persecution raged keenly and men's minds were sharpened, we may sometimes meet with an ap- *> Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol, i, p. 1 6. See the whole section, and the notes to it. II. I y TROD UCTION. 1 5 proach to it : but where there is nothing to rouse the critical faculty, we may generally expect an amount of credulity and arbitrariness which surpasses the capacities of most moderns. This statement applies not only to Christian writers, but to the very best thinkers of an- cient timesc, to the very best critics of Alexandria, and, not least, to the great Aristarchus in his own depart- mentd. 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 faculty exhibits itself in not clearly estimating the value of external testimony. There is a certain contentedness in all ancient w^riters which allows them to put faith in the most improbable assertions ; and sometimes their power of belief is co- extensive 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 Origen, an exceeding readiness to identify with the persons men- tioned in the New Testament any Christian individuals of the same name who had existed before their own time. c See Zellers estimate of Aristotle in his Platonische Studien, p. 131, quoted by Schwegler in the introductory chapter of his Nachaposto- lisches 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. d See Wolf's Prolegomena ad Homerum, c. xlvi. 'Is critico judicio maxime pollere putabatur qui optimum poetam proprio ingenio emen- dare poterat.' 1 6 IN TROD UCTION. chap. The examination of the genuineness of early Christian literature 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 likeli- hoods patch together, by the help of fancy, a complete whole. Hence the history of Christian literature has been overloaded with innumerable conjectui-es. It has been my object to avoid as much as possible conjecture itself, and the record of conjectures. The statements of contemporaries 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 anything like certainty in the first or second centuries. I have proceeded in a peculiar way with the writers subsequent to the first three centuries. IMy first, my best, and almost my only authority is Eusebius. Euse- bius 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 immense value of his book arises from the circumstance that he was careful in recording his proofs and in quoting from the writers of whom he was giving an account. Like all II. INTRODUCTION. 17 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 trustworthiness 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 prac- tices the clothing and names which they had in his own day. Eusebius did his work well ; and his history became henceforth the standard book on the subject. All sub- sequent writers have simply repeated his statements, sometimes indeed misrepresenting 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 waiters. But we have no reason to suppose that his omissions 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 VOL. I. c 1 8 IN TROD UCTION. chap. Areopagite^, that he had seen many books not known to Eusebiiis, 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 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 Evans g in speaking of Eusebius: "Later authors supply useful subsidiary information, but no fact should be insisted upon, nor any weighty inference drawn, where they are the sole authority.'-' The only work that was professedly composed on the same subject as the history of Eusebius was Jerome's book " De Illustribus Viris." As far as he has Eusebius for his guide, Jerome simply translates him, now and then misconstruing his sentences ^ occasionally con- tracting, 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 cer- tainly 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 unknow^n to Eusebius, or of his having made more minute investigations. And in the few historical ' Tom. i. p. xxxvi. ed. Corderii. S Biography of the Early Church, series i. p. ii. h See instances of Jerome's mistakes in Greek in Pearson, Vind. Ign. pai't ii. c. X. II. IN TROD UCTION. 1 9 treatises 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 A^igilantius, 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 did his rashness sometimes put him, that he had to retract statements which he made in regard to incidents in his own life^. Several after Jerome took up the subject of the illustrious writers of the Church, 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 ^ ' See Dailld, De Vero Usu Patrum, p. 236. ^ For some of Jerome's wilful mistakes and exaggerations, see Mait- land's Church in the Catacombs, p. 229, note; Isaac Taylor's Ancient Christianity, vol. i. p. 343 ; Daille, De Vero Usu Patrum, p. 153 ; and especially Dr. Gilly's Vigilantius and his Times, p. 93 ; and Zockler's Hieronymus, p, 383. Notwithstanding the plainest proofs of Jerome's want of critical power, Roman Catholic writers have placed him even above Eusebius as an authority. See Mohler's Patrologie, p. 21. 1 The works of these writers are collected by Fabricius in liis Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, in qua continentur De Scriptoribus Eccle- siasticis S. Hieronymus, Gennadius Massiliensis, Isidorus Hispalensis, Ildefonsus Toletanus, Honorius Augustodunensis, Sigebertus Gembla- censis, Henricus Gandavensis, Anonymus Mellicensis, Petrus Casinensis, Jo. Trithemii Abbatis Spanhemensis Liber de S. E. Aub. IMiraei Auc- C 2 20 INTRODUCTION. chap. The writers that refer incidentally to the history of the Church are comparatively few. The men of the fom^th and later centuries did not busy themselves much with the thoughts of the earliest among their prede- cessors. The most noteworthy are the ecclesiastical historians and the historians of heresies. The historians that relate the history of the Church in the first three centuries — Rufinus, Cassiodorus, and Nicephorus — simply translate or compile from Eusebius, often, like Jerome, misunderstanding, and as often wil- fully 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 the most convincing proof in his Life of St. Martin that he was totally unfit to investigate evidence ™. The historians of the Heresies are equally uncritical. Epiphanius seems to have been a man whose ideas of geography, history^ and chronology were confused to an extraordinary degree. The one quotation which Daille has made in proof of his ignorance of geography is tarium de S. E. curante Jo. Alberto Fabricio S. S. Theolog, D, Ham- burgi 1 718, fol. Fabricius occasionally adds copious notes, especially to the work of Jerome. m Neither Sulpicius Severus nor Cassiodorus deserves the name of historian. Bernays in his monogTaph 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, Cassiodorus calls his book a Chronicon, and he is more entitled to be noticed in a history of early Christian Literature for two or three chapters in his De Institutione iJivinarum Scripturarum than for the few allusions to Christian authors in his Chronicon. II. IXTRODUCTION. 21 sufficient to show how much we may rely on his state- ments. We extract it here. '' The Plieison," 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 preference which some critics have shown for Epiphanius", Theodoret, 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 indifferent whether Hadrian lived ten or a hundred years before Marcus Antoninus. The causes why their statements have been preferred are mainly two. They have sometimes made assertions in harmony with the conjectures of the cri- tics, and they have been looked on as sainted men whose every opinion and affirmation must have been true, or, at the very least, close to the truth. All that has been said of the uncritical character of such eminent writers as Epiphanius and Theodoret ap- plies with equal force to the accounts of heresies given by such men as Philastrius or in the anonymous or pseudepigraphous libelli collected by OehlerP. As we advance in time, our authorities become fewer. n Anchor, p. 60, D, c. 58, Dindorf. ^ DodweU, for instance, has fallen into a series of wild conjectures from trusting to Epiphanius. See Dissertat, in Irenjeum, iii. 19. P Corporis Haereseologici Tomus Primus continens Scriptores Hae- reseologicos Minores Latinos. Edidit Franciscus Oehler. Berolini 1856-61. The second portion contains the Panarion of Epiphanius. 22 INTRODUCTION. chap. They consist of the chroniclers, and of several writers who mention the books that come in their way. The chroniclers form a numerous class. They are all more or less dependent on Eusebius. Eusebius published a work called Havrohanri laTopta, consisting of a chrono- graphia and a Kava)v xpoi'iKo?. His researches were based on the labours of Julius Africanus. The 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 filling 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 q. Eusebius wrote thi« work before he wrote his ecclesiastical history. His Ecclesiastical History necessarily treated the matters with which we are concerned more fully than his Canon Chronicus. 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 con- tains the whole, Eusebius must have treated ecclesiasti- cal matters very concisely indeed, and certainly not with the same care which he afterwards bestowed on that 1 Eusebii Pamphili Csesariensis Episcopi Chronicon Bipartitum : nunc primum ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum annota- tionibus auctmn, Grsecis fragmentis exornatum. Opera P. Jo. Bap- tistae Aucher Ancyrani, Monachi Armeni et Doctoris Mechitaristas , Venetiis 1818, 4to. It was published also by Mai and Zohrab the same year at Milan. Mai has published an abstract of the Greek which he had discovered, in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio (Romse 1825), vol. viii. pars. i. More recently has appeared Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum quae supersunt edidit Alfred Schoene. Berlin 1866. This contains Jerome's translation, with a Latin translation of the Armenian and of a Syi'iac epitome, and a collection of the Greek fraorments. II. INTRODUCTION. 23 part of his subject. In Jerome's translation main- additional dates are inserted, and the subject is treated more amply ; but the same faults that are evident in his work De Illustribus Viris 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 transcribers. The principal chronicles which treated of the same periods as that of Eusebius, were the Chronicon Paschale, and the Chronicles of Georgius Syncellus, Georgius Cedrenus, and Joannes Malalas. So convinced was Scaliger that these writers had recourse to Eusebius, that in his restoration of the Eusebian text he thought he was justified in extracting indiscriminately from these writers and setting the extracts down to the account of Eusebius'". It is generally allowed now that Scaliger went too far ; and that at least some of these writers frequently consulted the sources ^ Yet they w411 be found, when we come to examine the information they give additional to that of EusebiuSj to have been led astray or to have been '^ Thesaurus Temporum Eusebii Pamphili : Chronicorum Canonum omnimodse historise libri duo, interprete Hieronymo : item autores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio et Hieronymo continuantes, ejusdem Eusebii utriusque partis Chronicorum Canonum reliquiae Graecse, quse coUigi potuerunt. Opera ac studio Josephi Justi Scaligeri, editio altera. Amstelodami 1658, fol. s See for instance in defence of Georgius Syncellus the Prsefatio of Goarus in p. 61, vol. ii. of the edition of Syncellus and Nicephorus by Wilhelm Diudorf : Bonn 1829. These volumes form part of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, got up by Niebuhr. The Clironicon 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. 24 INTRODUCTION. chap. rasli in their interpretation, rather than to have rested their statements on new authorities. In fact they were a careless set of writers, content with making books of considerable size, without the slightest thought 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 Caesar the founder of the city of Britain, not far from the Ocean *. Besides, these chroniclers deal very superficially with the history of our period_, passing over it in a cursory manner, and often giving 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 chronicler has not been betrayed into accepting as genuine what a little critical power would have clearly shown him to be spurious. 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, * See Hodius, Prolegomena, sect, xxxvi. p. Ixv. in Dindorfs 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." 11 Photii Bibliotheca : ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri. Berolini 1824, 4to. II. TXTRODUCTION. 25 though sometimes they cared little about them. Photius ^Yas entirely free from this desire. His dogmas wore 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 'OSr^yo? of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Parallels of John of Damascus^ and in the works of Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Many of the ]\Iartyria have been preserved by Simeon Metaphrastes. All these are credulous and careless. 2 6 IN TROD UCTION. chap. CHAPTER III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. It will be seen from the short notice of the authorities given 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 definitively 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 centuries, for which there is no satisfactory external testimony, are very numerous. They may be divided into two large classes. The one class includes those works which were undoubtedly 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 iir. I XT ROD rCTIOX. 2 7 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 interpola- tions, additions, and emendations. Each transcriber, as he coj^ied, inserted the notes of previous readers into the text, and often from his heated imagination added some- thing himself. This is acknowledged on all hands to be the case in many of the Martyria, in the Apostolical Constitutions, and in the Liturgies. 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 early writers, but works which at the same time have received additions from later hands. The second class of writings consists of those which themselves claim to be the productions of men of the first three centuries, but which there is strong reason to suspect were deliberate forgeries. The writers of the first three centuries w^hile 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 prac- tices and dogmas the stamp of a long antiquity. And hence arose a considerable number of forgeries wdiich pretended to be the works of the early waiters. Many of these forgeries are 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 diflSculty is ex- 2 8 IN TROD UCTION, chap. perienced, and the difficulty is increased by the circum- stance 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. Diony- sius mentions that his epistles were mutilated a, 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 witht>. Some are of opinion that many early Christian writers forged writings in the name of the great men of former days with no bad intention. Men in those days, they say, thought 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 founda- tion on which to rest. 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 sup- pose 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 a Eus. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23. See Heinichen's First Excursus, vol. iii. P- 354- fe Cypriani Opera, Goldhorn, Epist. IX. c. ii. c See Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, p. 80. III. INTRODUCTION. 29 the writings of the early Cliristians were peculiarly open to interpolations and corruptions from transcribers, transhitors, and editors. This opinion is not without reason. When we come to treat of Origen, we shall see on what arbitrary principles Rufinus and even Jerome translated from Greek into Latin, correcting the doctrine as well as omitting when it was deemed inexpedient to insert the sentence. Perhaps, however, the corruptions 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 early editors unquestionably introduced several expressions of a papistic nature into Cyprian's works. But many of the so-called interpola- tions were made only in the indexes. And the omissions of which they were guilty were dictated by that hier- archical principle which forbids 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 Catholics have not tampered with the early writers is best proved by the circumstance that these writers often bear testimony against the practices of the Roman ^ 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 Rome, for the maintenance of Popery. By Thomas James, Chief Keeper of the Public Library in the University of Oxford. Revised and corrected 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 corruptions ;" 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 Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 307. 30 INTRODUCTION. chap. 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*^. 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 absolute 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 particular 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 state- ments of the period. It is acknowledged that such a standard 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 ex- pression, evolutions of opinion, indications of contro- versies, 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 in modifying opinion and testimony. This has generally been overlooked. The Fathers have been massed together as a whole, and the opinion of one e See Daille, De Usu Patrum ; and especially Blunt, On the Use of the Fathers. III. INTRODUCTION. has been appealed to as if tliat were sufficient to prove that such must have been the opinion of another, if he 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 move- ment, of great and most momentous change. Christian- ity at its commencement is w^orking 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 in- ward 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 o^ti 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 in- fluence, 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 alter- ing. The proof of this will be presented throughout the whole of this work. All I wish to maintain at present 32 INTRODUCTION. chap. 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 principle affect the character of testimony and the history of opinion, and accordingly in the application of opinion as a test we must guard against confounding the opinions of one age with those of another. We shall take as an instance the works of Ignatius. 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 writings 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 will 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 Csesar a belief in the devil;, Eusebius will not fail to identify the opinions of his predecessors with his own. If a man is called a bishop, he will 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 III. INTRODUCTION. 33 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 understand Eusebius according to the light which we thus gain. TOL. I. 34 INTRODUCTION. chap. CHAPTER IV. THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. JLT is not necessary to devote mncli space to a con- sideration of modern works on Patristic literature. There are several works not very inaccessible whicli 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 : Jenae 1 834, 8vo ; with a 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 Bibliotheca Patristica : Tomus Primus : Patrol ogia Generalis (Landishuti 1841). Tom us 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 Chris- tian literature may be divided into two great classes — works of real research and value ; and mere sketchy productions or summaries, intended either for pre- lections or for the masses. Each of these classes may again be divided into Roman Catholic and Protestant. IV. TXTPiODUCTIO.Y. 35 The first considerable work by a Roman Catholic on the Fathers, is that of Antonius Possevinus, " Apparatus ad Seriptores V. et N. T., eorum Interpretes, Synodos et Patres Latinos ac Grsecos, horum Versiones, Theologos Scholastieos quique contra Hsereticos egerunt." (Venet. 1603; Col. Agripp. 1708, ii. fol.) It was followed by a work of Cardinal Bellarmine's, Liber de Scriptoribus Eccl. (Rom?e 1613, 4to), which belongs more properly to the sketchy class, and is not much more than a catalogue of the writers and their works. It was how- ever so highly esteemed by the Roman Catholic Church, that several of its able sons — Labbe, Andr. dii Saussay, and Casimir Oudin — re-edited the work^ and added laborious appendices. Labbe's Dissertations were pub- lished in two vols. 8vo, Paris 1660. Casimir Oudin, besides publishing a supplement to Bellarmine (Paris 1682, 8vo), wrote a separate commentary on ecclesiasti- cal writers : '' Casimiri Oudini, Commentarius de Scrip- toribus Ecclesiae antiquis illorumque Scriptis tam im- pressis quam manu scriptis adhuc extantibus in cele- brioribus Europae bibliothecis a Bellarmino, Possevino, Philippo Labbeo, Guilielmo Caveo, Ludovico Ellia du Pin, et aliis omissis ad annum MCCCCLX, vel ad artem typographicam inventam : cum multis dissertationibus, in quibus insigniorum Ecclesias autorum opuscula atque alia argumenta notabiliora accurate et prolixe examinan- tur." (Tom. iii. Lips. 1722, fol.) Before the appearance of Oudin's work, several valuable contributions to Christian literature had been made. Foremost among these is Tillemont's Memoires pour servir a I'Histoiro 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 D 2 36 INTRODUCTION, chap. whicli has been praised by Protestants for its liberal spirit : Louis Ellies du Pin_, Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, contenant I'histoire de leur vie, le catalogue, la critique, et la chronologic de leurs ouvrages ; le sommaire de ce qu'ils contiennent ; un jugement sur leur style et sur leur doctrine ; et le denombrement des differentes editions de leurs oeuvres. (Paris 1 686- 1 7 14, xlvii. 8vo.) Du Pin afterwards published the history of the writers of the first four centuries in Latin : " Nova Bibliotheca Auctorum Ecclesiasticorum." (Tom. ii. Paris 1703-15, fol.) His works were translated into English. (Third ed. Dublin 1723, 3 vols, fol.) Shortly after this appeared a work of vast research and learning by Nicolas Nourry, which extended how- ever only to the first four centuries. It was called " Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Lugduni editam.'^ Paris (1703-15 ; 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 afiirmed that it was also very defective. To remedy these defects, the Benedictine Remy Ceillier undertook a history of the sacred and ecclesiastical 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 Eccle- siastiques, qui contient leur vie, le catalogue, la critique, le jugement, la chronologic, &c. Par le R. P. Dom IV. IN TROD UCTION, 3 7 Remy Ceillier." (Paris 1729-63, xxiii. 4to.) He gives an account not merely of the lives but of the theolog-y 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, prin- cipally from Roman Catholic writers. The first volume appeared in 1858, at Paris. In more modern times there are two works of con- siderable 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-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina sanctorum patrum aliorumque scriptorum eeclesiasticorum trium primorum saeculorum ex virorum doctissimorum literariis monumentis collecta.'' (Augustae Vindelicorum 1783-99, xiii. 8vo.) 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 tra- ditions and sympathies. He devotes considerable space to the detail of the legends which found their way into the unauthenticated narratives of the lives of the early Christians. The other work is by a man of great religious fervour and high-toned feeling, who laboured diligently and suc- cessfully in the field of patristic study, I. A. Moehler. His work is named " Patrologie oder Christliche Literar- geschichte, aus dessen hinterlassenen Handschriften mit Erganzungen, herausgegeben von Dr. F. X. Reith- mayr." (Regensburg 1840.) It was published, as the title implies, after his death. Reithmayr has made considerable additions to the work, and he seems to have 38 INTRODUCTION. chap. taken liberties with the manuscript entrusted to him. It is a decidedly able and interesting work, and per- vaded by that spirit of liberality which distinguished Moehler and his school. It is however distinctly Eoman Catholic throughout. It extends only to the first three centuries, and is in many respects defective, notwith- standing the additions of Reithmayr. It has the merit, moreover, of being very readable. Kemarks 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 now to be procured in German, but there is a French translation a 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 Trittenheim, whose work, with the additions of Aubertus Mirseus relating to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is given in Fabricius. After Mirseus were Sixtus Senensis (1575):, Stephanus Lusig- nanus (1580), Simon de Voyon (1607), Suffridis Petri (1630), Sardagna (1772), Wilhelmus (1775), Schleichert (1777), Tobenz (1779), Macarius a S. Elia (1781), Stephanus Wiest (1785), Lang (1809), Winter (1814), RuefF (1828), Busse (1828), Goldwitzer (1829), Kauf- mann (1832), Locherer (1836), Annegarn (1839), Fessler (1850-51), Deutinger (1850-51), Charpentier (1853), Magon (1864), and Alzog (1866). Here should be mentioned also a w^ork, the tone of which is very much in harmony with that of Roman Catholic writers. It is by Constantinus R. Contogones, a Par Jean Cohen, Louvain 1844, 8vo. IV. INTRODUCTION. 39 Professor of Theology in the university of Athens, and an ardent adherent of the Greek Church. As yet only two volumes have been published of this work. It is able and learned. It gives an account of the theolog}^ 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 : ^ikokoyiKi] kol KpiriKi] laropia roiv aiTO T^9 a fJ.^XP'' "^V^ V ^xo^TovTaeTi^plbos aKixaaavTcau ayioiv Trjs €KK\i](Tios TTardpcav KOL Tiov crvyypafJLpLaTCLiu avToiv. vtto K(i)V(TTavTLVov KovToyovov, KaO-qy-qrov ttJs OeoKoyias €V re tQ> 77ave77L(TT-iiiJLi(^ ^O6u)vo