 |
| Fenton John Anthony Hort |
In 1890, Fenton John Anthony Hort
(half of the Westcott-Hort duo) delivered a series of six lectures on
ante-Nicene fathers. They were published in 1895, a few years after his death. What follows here,
with slight adjustments, is the third lecture in the series.
LECTURE III: JUSTIN
AND IRENAEUS
Last week
we finished those of the Fathers who are called Apostolic Fathers. We
considered two of them who were also martyrs, though at a long interval of
time, one a Bishop
of Antioch who was conducted
through Asia Minor to perish by the fangs of
wild beasts at Rome,
the other a Bishop of Smyrna who welcomed him on his way to death, collected
his letters and wrote about him at the time, journeyed himself in extreme old
age from Asia Minor to Rome to confer about difference of Church
usages, came peacefully home, and then before long was himself called to perish
at the stake in his own Smyrna
because he too would not deny his Lord.
We come
today to a third martyr, one who conventionally bears the title of martyr
almost as if it were part of his name. Justin was born at Mavia Neapolis close
to Sychem in Samaria,
but, it would seem, of heathen parentage. His Dialogue, to which we shall come presently, is represented as
having had its scene laid at Ephesus.
Eventually Justin would seem to have been much at Rome, at that time a special place of resort
for those who took an active part in religious movements: and there he suffered
martyrdom.
The genuine
works of his which have come down to us in their original form are at most
three in number, without counting a little treatise against heresies, lost in
its original form, but apparently in great part copied by Irenaeus.
Several others bear his name in manuscripts,
but are certainly by other authors of various ages, some quite late. Early in
the fourth century his name was attached to a partially different list of
writings, the genuineness of which we have no means of testing. But the books
of his which we do possess are so valuable from several points of view that we
have every reason to be satisfied. They are two
Apologies, as they are called, defending Christians against heathen
misrepresentations and heathen persecutions; and a
Dialogue with a Jew named Trypho in which the faith of Christians
is vindicated against Judaism. It is hardly necessary to say that Justin’s
Apologies have nothing whatever to do
with courteous excuses, i.e. with the modern English sense of the word
‘apology.’
It is simply the common Greek
word to denote any kind of defense against any kind of accusation, in a court
of justice or anywhere else. Justin’s
Apologies
were not quite the earliest of which we have any knowledge; but, so far as we
do know, their predecessors were of less permanent value.
Justin’s first and longest Apology is addressed to the Roman Emperor, i.e. Antoninus
Pius, and his two adopted sons, one of them the philosopher Marcus Aurelius, to
the Sacred Senate and all the people of the Romans. The time is two or three
years before the middle of the second century. Justin writes, he says, on
behalf of them who out of every race of mankind are the subjects of unjust hate
and contumely, being himself one of them.
He begins by appealing to the names Pious and Philosopher borne by the
rulers. “Reason,” he says, “instructs those who are truly Pious and
Philosophers to honor and cherish that only which is true, refusing to follow
mere opinions of the ancients if they are bad ones ; for sober reason instructs
us not only not to follow those actions or decisions which have been unjust,
but the lover of truth is bound in every way, and with disregard of his own
life, to choose to say and do such things as are just, though he be threatened
with death for so doing.”
He protests
against condemnation of Christians for the mere name, without anything evil
being proved against them.
He repudiates
the vulgar imputation of atheism, pointing out how the same charge had been
brought against Socrates, and had caused his death.
That crime he attributes to the inspiration
of the demons, whom he identifies with the gods of the heathen, and whom he
represents as similarly inspiring the attacks upon Christians.
As regards such gods as these, he confesses
atheism, but not as regards the most true God, the Father of right, and
temperance and the other virtues, Himself free from all mixture of evil; and
His Son and the prophetic Spirit.
As
regards the lives of Christians, he courts the fullest enquiry, demanding that
any found guilty of misconduct be duly punished, but for his crimes, not for
being a Christian.
Then follow several
chapters on the true service of God, on the Divine kingdom for which Christians
look, and on their living as ever in God’s sight; and this is followed by free
quotation from the Sermon on the Mount, and other similar passages from Gospel
records; and by reference to Christ’s own authority for the faithful loyalty
which Christians practiced towards the emperors. But it would take far too long
to give even a slight sketch of the contents of the
Apology. At every step we find attempts to trace analogies between
Christian beliefs on the one hand and Greek philosophy or Greek mythology on
the other.
This was no mere diplomatic
ad hominem accommodation, but connected
with Justin’s own deepest convictions.
The
doctrine of the Divine Word or logos
received from Scripture he connected with the Stoic doctrine of the Word or
Reason (logos) a seed of which is
inborn in all men; and thus he was enabled to recognize the workings of God in
the ages before the Word became Incarnate. He also appeals largely to the
testimony of the Jewish prophets; but on this subject he is hampered by his
habit of looking chiefly to supposed literal fulfillments of verbal predictions
and by a want of perception of the true nature of prophecy. The last few
chapters contain a valuable account of baptism as then practiced (i.e. adult
baptism, for nothing is said of infant baptism), and then of the conducting of
the newly-baptized person to the assembly of “the brethren,” followed by the
offering up of prayers for him and “for all others everywhere,” and by the
joining of all in the feast of thanksgiving or Eucharist, of which he gives a
further explanation. “And we from that
time forward,” he proceeds, “always have each other in remembrance ; and we
that are wealthy give help to all that are in need, and we are in company with
each other always. And for all that we partake of we bless the Maker of all
things through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.” Last he describes the Sunday service
including the Eucharist, and the distribution of the offerings among orphans
and widows, the sick and the needy, prisoners and sojourners from other lands.
The second
or Shorter Apology is probably a sort
of Appendix to the first. It begins with
a complaint how Urbicus the city prefect (or mayor, as we should say) had
condemned three Christians in succession to death, without any crime on their
part. Justin declares that he too is
expecting a similar fate, perhaps by the false accusations of the Cynic
Crescens who went about declaiming against the Christians. In what follows Justin speaks still more
explicitly than before of the seed of the Word which had been implanted in the
wiser and better heathen, causing them to be persecuted, not Socrates only but
Musonius and other Stoics: but they all differed, he explains, from Christ,
because what with them was in part only was with Him complete and whole. “Whatsoever things therefore,” he says, “have
been said well in any men’s words belong to us Christians; for we worship and
love next to God the Word who Cometh forth from the unborn and unutterable God,
since for our sakes also He hath become man, that becoming also a partaker of
the things that affect us He might also accomplish for us a cure. For all those writers were able to see but
dimly, through the seed of the Word inborn in them, the things that are. For a seed of a thing and imitation of it
granted according to capacity is one thing, and quite other is that which
graciously gives itself to be imparted and imitated.”
The other
work of Justin, a much larger one, is the Dialogue
with Trypho:
“While I
was walking one morning in the walks of the Xystus, a certain man, with others
in his company, having met me, said, ‘Hail, O philosopher!’ And immediately
after saying this, he turned round and walked along with me; his friends
likewise turned round with him. And I
for my part addressed him, saying, ‘Well, what is it?’ And he replied, ‘I was
taught,’ says he, ‘by Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, that I ought not to
despise or neglect those who wear this dress, but to show them all kindness,
and to associate with them, if so be some advantage might arise from the
intercourse either to some such man or to myself. It is good, moreover, for both, if either the
one or the other be benefited. On this
account, therefore, whenever I see anyone in such dress, I gladly approach him,
and now, for the same reason, have I willingly accosted you; and these
accompany me, in the expectation of hearing for themselves something profitable
from you.’
‘But who
are you, best of mortals?’ So I replied to him in jest.
Then he
told me simply both his name and his race. ‘Trypho,’ says he, ‘I am called; and
I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, escaped from the war lately carried on
there, and now spending my days in Greece,
for the most part at Corinth.’
‘And in
what’ said I, ‘would you be profited by philosophers so much as by your own
lawgiver and the prophets.’
‘What?’ he
replied. ‘Do not the philosophers make
their whole discourse on God? And are
they not continually raising questions about His unity and providence? Is not
this truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate concerning the Divinity?”
‘Yes,’ said
I, ‘so we too have supposed. But the most have not even cared about this,
whether there be one or more gods, and whether they take thought for each one
of us or no, as if this knowledge contributed nothing to our happiness; nay,
they moreover attempt to persuade us that God takes care of the universe as a
whole with its genera and species, but not of me and you, and each
individually, since otherwise we would surely not need to pray to Him night and
day. But it is not difficult to understand the upshot of this, for fearlessness
and license in speaking result to such as maintain these opinions, doing and
saying whatever they choose, neither dreading punishment nor hoping for any
benefit from God. For how could
they? They affirm that the same things
shall always happen; and, further, that I and you shall again live in like
manner, having become neither better men nor worse. But there are some others, who, having
supposed the soul to be immortal and immaterial, believe that though they have
committed evil they will not suffer punishment (for that which is immaterial is
insensible), and that the soul, in consequence of its immortality, needs
nothing from God.'
“And he,
smiling gently, said, ‘Tell us your opinion of these matters, and what idea you
entertain respecting God, and what your philosophy is.’
“‘I will
tell you,’ said I, ‘what seems to me, for philosophy is in fact the greatest
possession, and most honorable before God, to whom it leads us and alone
commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on
philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent
down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither
Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics, nor Pythagoreans,
this knowledge being one. I wish to tell
you how it has become many-headed. It
has happened that those who first handled it [i.e. philosophy], and who were
therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no
investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and
self-discipline of the former, as well as the novelty of the doctrines; and
each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher. Then, moreover, those latter persons handed
down to their successors such things, and others similar to them, and this
system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine.
“Being at
first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered
myself to a certain Stoic; and having spent a considerable time with him, when
I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself
nor did he say that this was a necessary part of teaching) I left him, and
betook myself to another, who was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied,
shrewd. And this man, after putting up
with me for the first few days, requested me to fix a fee, in order that the
intercourse might not be unprofitable to us. Him too for this reason I abandoned,
believing him to be no philosopher at all.
But as my soul was still yearning to hear the peculiar and choice part
of philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated – a man who thought
much of his own wisdom. And then, when I
had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said,
‘What then? Are you acquainted with
music, astronomy and geometry? Do you
expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you
have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible
objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that
it can contemplate that which is honorable in its essence and that which is
good in its essence?’
“Having
commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were
necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance. Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as
was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the
man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which
I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to
endure longer procrastination. In my perplexity it occurred to me to have an
interview with the Platonists likewise, for their fame was great. And so I conversed much with one who had
lately settled in our city – a man of intelligence, holding a high position
among the Platonists – and I made progress, and gained ever so much increase
day by day. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and
the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little
while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected
forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato’s philosophy.
“And while
I was thus disposed, when I wished at one time to be filled with great
quietness, and to shun the tramp of men, I used to go to a certain field not
far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I
purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in
appearance, showing a meek and grave disposition, followed me at a little
distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather
keenly on him.” —
Then Justin
recounts how the old man, after much discourse on philosophy, and especially
that of Plato and Pythagoras, guided him to the prophets and the Christ of whom
they prophesied.
“‘But pray’
he concluded ‘that before all things, the gates of light may be opened to thee;
for these things are not perceptible to the eyes or mind of all, but only of
the man to whom God and His Christ shall give the power to understand.’
‘When he
had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning
at present, he went away, bidding me follow them up; and I saw him no
more. But straightway
a fire was kindled in my soul, and a love of the prophets,
and of those men who are friends of
Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my
mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and expedient. Thus, then, and for this reason, I am a
philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that
all with a resolution similar to my own would never separate themselves from
the words of the Savior. For they
possess an awe in themselves, and are sufficient to abash those who turn aside
from the path of rectitude; while the sweetest rest comes to those who
carefully practice them. If then, thou hast any care for thyself, and seek
after salvation and put thy trust in God, thou may come to know the Christ of
God, and become perfect, and so be happy.’
“When I had
said this, my beloved friend, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he,
smiling, says, ‘I approve of your other remarks, and admire
the eagerness with which you study divine things, but it were better for you still
to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating
endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false
words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy,
and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you
have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits
you? If, then, thou art willing to
listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised,
then keep as the law hath ordained the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new
moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law,
and then perhaps thou shalt have mercy from God. But Christ – if He has indeed
been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown, and does not yet even recognize
Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest
to all. But ye, accepting a vain report,
invent a Christ for yourselves, and for His sake arc now inconsiderately
perishing.’
“‘I excuse
and forgive you, my friend,’ I said, ‘for you know not what you say, but have
been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak,
like a diviner, whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen
to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to
confess Him – although men’s reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most
terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him, – I shall prove to you as you stand here
that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation, but
words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with
grace.” [Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, from pp. 85-97 in Rev. G. Reith’s translation
(Antenicene Christian Library).]
Some of
Trypho’s companions depart with jeers, and then the dialogue begins in earnest.
It ranges over the various points of difference between
Judaism and the Christian faith of that time, and large masses of the Old
Testament are naturally quoted and discussed.
But we must be content with the autobiographic sketch, for such it
doubtless is, which forms the introduction. Of course we must not expect that
that story of passing from philosopher to philosopher is a complete account of the course of Justin’s conversion. In his
second Apology he speaks strongly of
the impression made on him by the virtues of the Christians while he was in his
Platonist stage, and we may be sure that this impression acted powerfully on
him. But the name which he commonly bore, Justin philosopher and martyr, was entirely appropriate. He is the first prominent representative of
what was to be the characteristic of many Fathers of the Church, both Greek and
Latin, the construction of a theology out of the biblical elements of the faith
in combination with this or that Gentile philosophy of the loftier sort.
How soon
Justin’s anticipations of martyrdom were fulfilled is not known with certainty.
There is fair evidence however that the interval was not
long. A short and simple narrative of
his examination before the prefect still survives, and is almost certainly
genuine. He and his companions died by
the headsman’s sword.
We possess
other Greek Apologies written later in the same century.
The most individual of them is by Tatian, an
erratic disciple of Justin’s, the compiler of a famous
Diatessaron or composite Gospel narrative formed by putting
together small fragments of the four Gospels. He was by birth a Syrian, not a Greek, and his fiery nature
bursts forth in his Apology in bitter hatred and contempt for all that was
Greek. The other Apologies have a value
of their own, but are far below Justin’s in force and freshness. We must now turn to a different region from
any in which we have as yet paused. Irenaeus,
one of the greatest of the Fathers, belongs to different countries, but he must
always be chiefly associated with
South-East France,
the scene of his principal labors and episcopal authority. There is however a prelude to his work which
must not be passed over.
Marseilles was a Greek
colony of great antiquity, and from it the Greek language and culture spread
not only along the coast but for a considerable distance up the
Rhone. How the
Gospel first found its way there we do not know, but there is some evidence of
a connection between the churches of Western Asia Minor and those of the
Rhone. Now the
historian Eusebius has preserved for us the greater part of a letter which
begins thus:
“The
servants of Christ who sojourn in Vienna and Lyons in Gaul to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith and hope of redemption
with us: peace and grace and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord.” The purpose of the letter is to
describe a grievous persecution which had fallen upon them, Pothinus the
bishop, a man of 90 years of age, being among the victims. The story of
Christian heroism, especially as shown by the slave girl Blandina, has hardly
an equal in literature: but it must be read as a whole, and it is of considerable
length.
While some
of these Christians of Lyons and Vienna were in
prison, they wrote various letters, among others one to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, “on behalf of the peace of the churches,” i.e.
probably to urge toleration for the votaries of the new enthusiastic movement
proceeding from Phrygia which we know under
the name Montanism. The bearer of the
letter was an elder of Lyons, Irenaeus by name; and the writers of the letter
warmly commend him to Eleutherus, as one who was zealous for the covenant of
Christ. How long he had been in Gaul, we
know not, but he came from Asia Minor, where
as we know from the passage read last week he had listened eagerly to the aged
Polycarp, and his reminiscences of his intercourse in youth with men who had seen
the Lord.
There is
also some evidence that he was at Rome
at the time of Polycarp’s death, and heard there the sound as of a trumpet
proclaiming “Polycarp hath suffered martyrdom.”
Later in life he addressed himself to Rome for another mission of peace. The importance which the Church of Rome
derived from its position in the central city of the Empire was gradually
fastening itself to the person of its bishop, and assumed exaggerated
proportions when the arrogant Victor was its bishop. The differences between the Asiatic and the
Roman customs as to the time of keeping the Paschal festival had now become
aggravated into a deadly strife, and Victor endeavored to impose the Roman
custom on all churches. Irenaeus was now
a follower of the Roman custom, but this did not prevent his writing a strong
letter of remonstrance to Victor in the name of the Christians of Gaul. This
incident occurred somewhere in the last few years of the second century.
After this
we hear no more of Irenaeus on any tolerable authority. He may or may not have
lived into the new century. Essentially
he is the best representative of the last half, and especially the last
quarter, of the second century.
Besides
minor works, chiefly Epistles, of which we have only fragments, we possess
entire Irenaeus’ great work, the
Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge (Gnosis) falsely so called.
Only a small
proportion of it is preserved in Greek, but it is a great thing that the
ancient Latin version is completely preserved.
Thus far I have said nothing about the theologians who are now called
Gnostics.
Unfortunately not many
fragments are preserved of their own writings; so that our knowledge of them
comes chiefly from opponents who saw truly the impossibility of reconciling
their main principles with the historical Gospel, but who as a rule had but a
dim sense of the real meaning of their speculations, and a very imperfect
sympathy with the speculative difficulties which led to them.
The so-called Gnostic systems were various
attempts to interpret history and nature by a medley of Christian ideas with
the ideas and mythologies suggested by various Eastern religions.
The most definite types of so-called
Gnosticism were further shaped by Greek influence, and it is in this form that
they chiefly came into collision with the ordinary churches.
Their great time was about the middle of the
first half of the second century, but they lasted on in one shape or another
for a considerable time.
The great
leaders had passed away before Irenaeus wrote, but even in
Gaul
his flock was troubled by some of the successors; and it was no superfluous
task that he undertook when he set about an elaborate refutation.
Doubtless
he had other predecessors besides Justin.
Thus
Papias had written “Expositions of the Lord’s Oracles” to correct
and supersede the fantastic interpretation of our Lord’s parables and other
discourses by which some of the so-called Gnostics endeavored to find authority
for their speculations.
Nor was he the
only
elder to use the often recurring
title, whom Irenaeus was thankful to quote and sometimes to transcribe at
considerable length.
Doubtless, if so
large a proportion of the Christian literature of the preceding half-century
had not perished, we should have found yet clearer evidence of the width of his
reading.
But it is a
striking fact that, while his censure of the so-called Gnostic systems is
always unreserved and pitiless, he is unconsciously influenced by the new
thoughts which they had brought forward.
The Christianity which he proclaims has a comprehensiveness such as no
earlier Christian Father known to us could ever have dreamed of. His doctrine of the Word is a true expansion of St. John’s doctrine, a rich application
of it to bring order into the retrospect of the spiritual history of mankind,
and so his vision of the future is inspired by the thought which he loves to
repeat out of the Epistle to the Ephesians, how that it was the eternal purpose
of the Father to sum up all things in Christ (anakefalaiwsasthai, recapitulare).
Two
passages must suffice, though many are tempting to read. The first shall be a
familiar one from the second book, on our Lord’s taking upon Him all the ages
of man up to adult manhood.
“He was
thirty years of age when He came to the Baptism, thenceforth having the full
age of a teacher, when He came to Jerusalem,
that He might rightly be able to receive the title of Teacher from all. For to
seem one thing, and be another, was not His way, as is said by those who
represent Him as being in appearance only: but what He was, that He also
seemed. Being therefore a Teacher, He had likewise the ages of a Teacher, not
rejecting nor transcending man, nor breaking the law of the human race in
Himself, but hallowing every age by its likeness to Himself. For He came to save all through Himself; all,
I mean, who through Him are born anew unto God, infants, and little children,
and boys, and youths, and elders. Accordingly He came through every age, with
infants becoming an infant, hallowing infants; among little children a little
child, hallowing those of that very age, at the same time making Himself to
them an example of dutifulness, and righteousness, and subjection; among young
men a young man, becoming an example to young men and hallowing them to the
Lord. So also an elder among elders,
that He might be a perfect Teacher in all things, not only as regards the
setting forth of the Truth but also as regards age, at the same time hallowing
also the elders, becoming likewise an example to them. Lastly He came also even
unto death, that He might be the first begotten from the dead, Himself holding
the primacy in all things, the Author of life, before all things, and having
precedence of all things.” [Irenaeus, p. 358,
Stieren.]
The other
passage shall be from the end of the book, the end also of the millennial
speculations which filled Irenaeus as they did other men of that age. If some
of the thoughts are difficult to follow, yet they manifestly deserve to be
listened to and pondered.
“In clear
vision then did John see beforehand the first resurrection of the righteous,
and the inheritance of the earth during the kingdom (reign): to the same effect
also did the prophets prophesy concerning it. For thus much the Lord also
taught, in that He promised that He would have a new mixing of the Cup in the
kingdom with the disciples. And the apostle too declared that the creation
should be free from the bondage of corruption to enter the liberty of the glory
of the sons of God. And in all these
[events], and through them all, the same God, even the Father, is shown forth,
who fashioned man, and promised the inheritance to the fathers, who prepared it
(?) for the resurrection of the righteous, and fulfils the promises for His
Son’s kingdom, afterward bestowing as a Father things which neither eye hath
seen, nor ear heard, and which have not ascended into the heart of man. For One is the Son, who accomplished the
Father’s will; and one the human race, in which the mysteries of God are
accomplished, which angels desire to see, and have not power to explain the
wisdom of God, through which the being which He fashioned is brought into
conformity and concorporation with the Son; that His offspring, the first
begotten Word, might descend into the creature, that is into the being that
[God] fashioned, and be received by Him; and that the creature again might
receive the Word, and ascend up to Him, mounting above the angels, and come to
be after the image and likeness of God.”
