Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part II. 第二十一章 对异端的迫害；教会的状况——第二节
Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part II.
第二十一章 对异端的迫害；教会的状况——第二节
The eloquence of Plato, the name of Solomon, the authority of the school of Alexandria, and the consent of the Jews and Greeks, were insufficient to establish the truth of a mysterious doctrine, which might please, but could not satisfy, a rational mind. A prophet, or apostle, inspired by the Deity, can alone exercise a lawful dominion over the faith of mankind: and the theology of Plato might have been forever confounded with the philosophical visions of the Academy, the Porch, and the Lycæum, if the name and divine attributes of the Logos had not been confirmed by the celestial pen of the last and most sublime of the Evangelists. 20 The Christian Revelation, which was consummated under the reign of Nerva, disclosed to the world the amazing secret, that the Logos, who was with God from the beginning, and was God, who had made all things, and for whom all things had been made, was incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; who had been born of a virgin, and suffered death on the cross. Besides the general design of fixing on a perpetual basis the divine honors of Christ, the most ancient and respectable of the ecclesiastical writers have ascribed to the evangelic theologian a particular intention to confute two opposite heresies, which disturbed the peace of the primitive church. 21 I. The faith of the Ebionites, 22 perhaps of the Nazarenes, 23 was gross and imperfect. They revered Jesus as the greatest of the prophets, endowed with supernatural virtue and power. They ascribed to his person and to his future reign all the predictions of the Hebrew oracles which relate to the spiritual and everlasting kingdom of the promised Messiah. 24 Some of them might confess that he was born of a virgin; but they obstinately rejected the preceding existence and divine perfections of the Logos, or Son of God, which are so clearly defined in the Gospel of St. John. About fifty years afterwards, the Ebionites, whose errors are mentioned by Justin Martyr with less severity than they seem to deserve, 25 formed a very inconsiderable portion of the Christian name. II. The Gnostics, who were distinguished by the epithet of Docetes, deviated into the contrary extreme; and betrayed the human, while they asserted the divine, nature of Christ. Educated in the school of Plato, accustomed to the sublime idea of the Logos, they readily conceived that the brightest Æon, or Emanation of the Deity, might assume the outward shape and visible appearances of a mortal; 26 but they vainly pretended, that the imperfections of matter are incompatible with the purity of a celestial substance.
柏拉图的雄辩、所罗门的盛名、亚历山大里亚学派的权威，再加上犹太人与希腊人的一致首肯，仍不足以确立一条神秘教义的真实性；这条教义或可取悦理性的心灵，却无法令其信服。唯有蒙上帝默示的先知或使徒，才能名正言顺地主宰世人的信仰；倘若不是那最后也最崇高的福音书作者以神来之笔，确证了 Logos 之名及其神性，柏拉图的神学恐怕早已同学园、画廊、吕克昂诸派的哲学玄想混为一谈、再难分辨了。20基督教的启示在涅尔瓦朝臻于圆满，它向世人揭示了一桩惊人的秘密：那太初便与上帝同在、且本为上帝的逻各斯——万物都是藉他而造、也都是为他而造的——竟在拿撒勒人耶稣身上取了肉身；此人由童女所生，终又死于十字架。最古老、最可敬的一批教会作者认为：这位福音书神学家除了要为基督的神圣尊荣奠定万世不易的根基这一总意图之外，还另怀一层特定的用心，即驳斥两种针锋相对、扰乱原始教会安宁的异端。21其一，伊便尼派22（或许还有拿撒勒派23）的信仰粗陋而不完备。他们尊崇耶稣，视之为最伟大的先知，禀有超凡的德能与力量；希伯来圣典里的种种预言，凡关乎那应许的弥赛亚及其属灵而永恒的国度的，他们都系于耶稣其人，系于他将来的治权。24他们当中有些人或许承认耶稣由童女所生，却顽固地否认 Logos（即上帝之子）先在的存在及其完满的神性——而这一点，《约翰福音》本已界定得清清楚楚。约五十年后，伊便尼派在基督徒中已只占极微不足道的一部分；殉道者查士丁提及他们的谬误时，语气之宽和，似乎还不及其应得的严厉。25其二，被冠以 Docetes（幻影派）之名的诺斯替派，则走向相反的极端：他们力主基督具有神性，却因此背弃了基督的人性。他们受教于柏拉图学派，熟稔逻各斯那崇高的观念，遂不难设想：神性中最明亮的一个 Æon（埃翁）、亦即神的一次“流溢”，未尝不可披上凡人的外形、现出可见的样貌；26但他们枉费口舌地强辩说，物质的种种缺陷与天上实体的纯洁势不两立。
While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the Docetes invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that, instead of issuing from the womb of the Virgin, 27 he had descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their impotent rage on an ury phantom, who seemed to expire on the cross, and, after three days, to rise from the dead. 28
The divine sanction, which the Apostle had bestowed on the fundamental principle of the theology of Plato, encouraged the learned proselytes of the second and third centuries to admire and study the writings of the Athenian sage, who had thus marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation. The respectable name of Plato was used by the orthodox, 29 and abused by the heretics, 30 as the common support of truth and error: the authority of his skilful commentators, and the science of dialectics, were employed to justify the remote consequences of his opinions and to supply the discreet silence of the inspired writers. The same subtle and profound questions concerning the nature, the generation, the distinction, and the equality of the three divine persons of the mysterious Triad, or Trinity, 31 were agitated in the philosophical and in the Christian schools of Alexandria. An eager spirit of curiosity urged them to explore the secrets of the abyss; and the pride of the professors, and of their disciples, was satisfied with the sciences of words. But the most sagacious of the Christian theologians, the great Athanasius himself, has candidly confessed, 32 that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. In every step of the inquiry, we are compelled to feel and acknowledge the immeasurable disproportion between the size of the object and the capacity of the human mind. We may strive to abstract the notions of time, of space, and of matter, which so closely adhere to all the perceptions of our experimental knowledge. But as soon as we presume to reason of infinite substance, of spiritual generation; as often as we deduce any positive conclusions from a negative idea, we are involved in darkness, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction. As these difficulties arise from the nature of the subject, they oppress, with the same insuperable weight, the philosophic and the theological disputant; but we may observe two essential and peculiar circumstances, which discriminated the doctrines of the Catholic church from the opinions of the Platonic school.
使徒既已把神圣的认可赋予柏拉图神学的这条根本原理，二、三世纪那些博学的归信者便大受鼓舞，钦慕并研读起这位雅典哲人的著作——因为他竟如此奇妙地预见了基督教启示中最令人惊异的发现之一。柏拉图这可敬的名字，既为正统派所援用29，也遭异端所滥用30，成了真理与谬误共同的靠山：人们援引他那些高明注释者的权威，又搬出辩证之学，来为其学说的种种远引结论辩护，并填补受默示的作者们审慎的沉默。那神秘的 Triad（三合一）、或曰 Trinity（三位一体）31，其三个神圣位格的本性、生成、区别与平等，引出了种种精微深奥的问题；而这同一批问题，在亚历山大里亚的哲学学派与基督教学派中，都激起过一样的争辩。一股急切的好奇心，驱使他们去探测那深渊的奥秘；而讲学者及其门徒的骄傲，则以这门玩弄辞藻的学问为满足。然而，基督教神学家中最睿智的那一位、即伟大的阿塔纳修斯本人，也坦率地承认32：每当他勉强自己的理智去默想 Logos 的神性，那番艰辛而徒劳的努力总是反噬自身；他愈是思索，愈是不解；愈是下笔，愈是无从表达心中所想。在这探究的每一步上，我们都不得不感到并承认：对象之浩大与人心之能力，二者悬殊得无从度量。我们纵然竭力想把时间、空间与物质的观念抽离出去——这些观念本与我们一切经验知识的感知紧紧相连——可是，一旦我们贸然去推论无限的实体、属灵的生成，一旦我们试图从一个否定性的观念中推出任何肯定性的结论，便立刻堕入黑暗、迷惑与无从避免的自相矛盾。这些困难既源自题目本身的性质，便以同样不可克服的重负，压在哲学论辩者与神学论辩者身上；但我们不妨留意两点根本而独特的情形，正是它们把大公教会的教义与柏拉图学派的见解区别了开来。
I. A chosen society of philosophers, men of a liberal education and curious disposition, might silently meditate, and temperately discuss in the gardens of Athens or the library of Alexandria, the abstruse questions of metaphysical science. The lofty speculations, which neither convinced the understanding, nor agitated the passions, of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of mankind. 33 But after the Logos had been revealed as the sacred object of the faith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians, the mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing multitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from their age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge, who were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning, aspired to contemplate the economy of the Divine Nature: and it is the boast of Tertullian, 34 that a Christian mechanic could readily answer such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between the highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be calculated as infinitely small; yet the degree of weakness may perhaps be measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence. These speculations, instead of being treated as the amusement of a vacant hour, became the most serious business of the present, and the most useful preparation for a future, life. A theology, which it was incumbent to believe, which it was impious to doubt, and which it might be dangerous, and even fatal, to mistake, became the familiar topic of private meditation and popular discourse. The cold indifference of philosophy was inflamed by the fervent spirit of devotion; and even the metaphors of common language suggested the fallacious prejudices of sense and experience. The Christians, who abhorred the gross and impure generation of the Greek mythology, 35 were tempted to argue from the familiar analogy of the filial and paternal relations. The character of Son seemed to imply a perpetual subordination to the voluntary author of his existence; 36 but as the act of generation, in the most spiritual and abstracted sense, must be supposed to transmit the properties of a common nature, 37 they durst not presume to circumscribe the powers or the duration of the Son of an eternal and omnipotent Father. Fourscore years after the death of Christ, the Christians of Bithynia, declared before the tribunal of Pliny, that they invoked him as a god: and his divine honors have been perpetuated in every age and country, by the various sects who assume the name of his disciples. 38 Their tender reverence for the memory of Christ, and their horror for the profane worship of any created being, would have engaged them to assert the equal and absolute divinity of the Logos, if their rapid ascent towards the throne of heaven had not been imperceptibly checked by the apprehension of violating the unity and sole supremacy of the great Father of Christ and of the Universe. The suspense and fluctuation produced in the minds of the Christians by these opposite tendencies, may be observed in the writings of the theologians who flourished after the end of the apostolic age, and before the origin of the Arian controversy. Their suffrage is claimed, with equal confidence, by the orthodox and by the heretical parties; and the most inquisitive critics have fairly allowed, that if they had the good fortune of possessing the Catholic verity, they have delivered their conceptions in loose, inaccurate, and sometimes contradictory language. 39
其一，一小群精选出来的哲学家——都是受过博雅教育、天性好奇之人——尽可以在雅典的园林里、在亚历山大里亚的图书馆中，默默沉思、平心讨论那形而上之学的种种深奥问题。这些高蹈的玄思，既说服不了柏拉图主义者自己的理智，也撩拨不起他们的激情；至于世人——无论闲散的、忙碌的、乃至好学的——更是漫不经心，视而不见。33然而，一旦 Logos 被启示为基督徒信仰、盼望与崇拜的神圣对象，这套神秘的体系便在罗马世界的每一个行省，为日益众多的人群所信奉。那些因年龄、性别或职业本最没有资格评判、也最不习于抽象推理的人，偏偏也渴望去思索神性运作的奥理；德尔图良就此夸口说34，一个基督徒工匠也能不假思索地回答那些曾令希腊最智慧的贤哲困惑不解的问题。当题目远非我们所能企及之时，人类理解力的最高者与最低者之间，其差别确乎可算作无穷之小；然而，其愚弱的程度，或许倒可以用其固执与武断自信的程度来衡量。这些玄思，非但不再是闲暇片刻的消遣，反倒成了今生最严肃的正事、来世最有用的准备。这样一门神学——信之为本分，疑之为亵渎，而一旦领会有误便可能招致危险、乃至杀身之祸——竟成了私下默想与街谈巷议的寻常话题。虔敬的炽热精神，点燃了哲学那种冷淡的漠然；甚至日常语言里的种种譬喻，也悄然引入了感官与经验的谬误成见。基督徒憎恶希腊神话里那种粗鄙污秽的生育之说35，却不免受了引诱，转而借人所熟知的父子关系来作类比推论。“子”这一名分，似乎意味着他永远从属于那位甘愿作其存在之源者；36但既然“生”这一行为，即便取其最属灵、最抽象的意义，也理应设想为会传递共同本性的诸般属性37，他们便不敢擅自去限定圣子的权能与存续——须知圣子之父，本是永恒而全能的。基督死后八十年，比提尼亚的基督徒在普林尼的审判庭上声明，他们把基督当作神明来呼求；而历代各地形形色色、自称其门徒的教派，也都把他的神圣尊荣世代延续了下来。38他们温情而崇敬地追念基督，又对崇拜任何受造之物深怀憎怖，这本会促使他们去主张 Logos 具有同等而绝对的神性；只是有一层顾虑，不知不觉间拦住了他们向天国宝座的疾速攀升——他们唯恐触犯基督与宇宙那伟大之父独一无二、至高无上的地位。这两种相反的倾向，在基督徒心中造成了迟疑与摇摆；而这一点，可以从那些神学家的著作中窥见——他们活跃于使徒时代终结之后、阿里乌斯派之争兴起之前。正统派与异端两方，都同样自信地援引这些人的支持；而最爱刨根问底的批评家们也公允地承认：这些神学家纵然有幸掌握了大公教会的真理，其表述却出以松散、含糊、有时甚至自相矛盾的语言。39
Notes 注释
20
The Platonists admired the beginning of the Gospel of St. John as containing an exact transcript of their own principles. Augustin de Civitat. Dei, x. 29. Amelius apud Cyril. advers. Julian. l. viii. p. 283. But in the third and fourth centuries, the Platonists of Alexandria might improve their Trinity by the secret study of the Christian theology. Note: A short discussion on the sense in which St. John has used the word Logos, will prove that he has not borrowed it from the philosophy of Plato. The evangelist adopts this word without previous explanation, as a term with which his contemporaries were already familiar, and which they could at once comprehend. To know the sense which he gave to it, we must inquire that which it generally bore in his time. We find two: the one attached to the word logos by the Jews of Palestine, the other by the school of Alexandria, particularly by Philo. The Jews had feared at all times to pronounce the name of Jehovah; they had formed a habit of designating God by one of his attributes; they called him sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Word. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made. (Psalm xxxiii. 6.) Accustomed to allegories, they often addressed themselves to this attribute of the Deity as a real being. Solomon makes Wisdom say “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” (Prov. viii. 22, 23.) Their residence in Persia only increased this inclination to sustained allegories. In the Ecclesiasticus of the son of Sirach, and the Book of Wisdom, we find allegorical descriptions of Wisdom like the following: “I came out of the mouth of the Most High; I covered the earth as a cloud;... I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the bottom of the deep... The Creator created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never fail.” (Eccles. xxiv. 35- 39.) See also the Wisdom of Solomon, c. vii. v. 9. [The latter book is clearly Alexandrian.—M.] We see from this that the Jews understood from the Hebrew and Chaldaic words which signify Wisdom, the Word, and which were translated into Greek, a simple attribute of the Deity, allegorically personified, but of which they did not make a real particular being separate from the Deity.
The school of Alexandria, on the contrary, and Philo among the rest, mingling Greek with Jewish and Oriental notions, and abandoning himself to his inclination to mysticism, personified the logos, and represented it a distinct being, created by God, and intermediate between God and man. This is the second logos of Philo, that which acts from the beginning of the world, alone in its kind, creator of the sensible world, formed by God according to the ideal world which he had in himself, and which was the first logos, the first- born of the Deity. The logos taken in this sense, then, was a created being, but, anterior to the creation of the world, near to God, and charged with his revelations to mankind.
Which of these two senses is that which St. John intended to assign to the word logos in the first chapter of his Gospel, and in all his writings? St. John was a Jew, born and educated in Palestine; he had no knowledge, at least very little, of the philosophy of the Greeks, and that of the Grecizing Jews: he would naturally, then, attach to the word logos the sense attached to it by the Jews of Palestine. If, in fact, we compare the attributes which he assigns to the logos with those which are assigned to it in Proverbs, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus, we shall see that they are the same. The Word was in the world, and the world was made by him; in him was life, and the life was the light of men, (c. i. v. 10-14.) It is impossible not to trace in this chapter the ideas which the Jews had formed of the allegorized logos. The evangelist afterwards really personifies that which his predecessors have personified only poetically; for he affirms “that the Word became flesh,” (v. 14.) It was to prove this that he wrote. Closely examined, the ideas which he gives of the logos cannot agree with those of Philo and the school of Alexandria; they correspond, on the contrary, with those of the Jews of Palestine. Perhaps St. John, employing a well-known term to explain a doctrine which was yet unknown, has slightly altered the sense; it is this alteration which we appear to discover on comparing different passages of his writings.
It is worthy of remark, that the Jews of Palestine, who did not perceive this alteration, could find nothing extraordinary in what St. John said of the Logos; at least they comprehended it without difficulty, while the Greeks and Grecizing Jews, on their part, brought to it prejudices and preconceptions easily reconciled with those of the evangelist, who did not expressly contradict them. This circumstance must have much favored the progress of Christianity. Thus the fathers of the church in the two first centuries and later, formed almost all in the school of Alexandria, gave to the Logos of St. John a sense nearly similar to that which it received from Philo. Their doctrine approached very near to that which in the fourth century the council of Nice condemned in the person of Arius.—G.
M. Guizot has forgotten the long residence of St. John at Ephesus, the centre of the mingling opinions of the East and West, which were gradually growing up into Gnosticism. (See Matter. Hist. du Gnosticisme, vol. i. p. 154.) St. John’s sense of the Logos seems as far removed from the simple allegory ascribed to the Palestinian Jews as from the Oriental impersonation of the Alexandrian. The simple truth may be that St. John took the familiar term, and, as it were infused into it the peculiar and Christian sense in which it is used in his writings.—M.
The school of Alexandria, on the contrary, and Philo among the rest, mingling Greek with Jewish and Oriental notions, and abandoning himself to his inclination to mysticism, personified the logos, and represented it a distinct being, created by God, and intermediate between God and man. This is the second logos of Philo, that which acts from the beginning of the world, alone in its kind, creator of the sensible world, formed by God according to the ideal world which he had in himself, and which was the first logos, the first- born of the Deity. The logos taken in this sense, then, was a created being, but, anterior to the creation of the world, near to God, and charged with his revelations to mankind.
Which of these two senses is that which St. John intended to assign to the word logos in the first chapter of his Gospel, and in all his writings? St. John was a Jew, born and educated in Palestine; he had no knowledge, at least very little, of the philosophy of the Greeks, and that of the Grecizing Jews: he would naturally, then, attach to the word logos the sense attached to it by the Jews of Palestine. If, in fact, we compare the attributes which he assigns to the logos with those which are assigned to it in Proverbs, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus, we shall see that they are the same. The Word was in the world, and the world was made by him; in him was life, and the life was the light of men, (c. i. v. 10-14.) It is impossible not to trace in this chapter the ideas which the Jews had formed of the allegorized logos. The evangelist afterwards really personifies that which his predecessors have personified only poetically; for he affirms “that the Word became flesh,” (v. 14.) It was to prove this that he wrote. Closely examined, the ideas which he gives of the logos cannot agree with those of Philo and the school of Alexandria; they correspond, on the contrary, with those of the Jews of Palestine. Perhaps St. John, employing a well-known term to explain a doctrine which was yet unknown, has slightly altered the sense; it is this alteration which we appear to discover on comparing different passages of his writings.
It is worthy of remark, that the Jews of Palestine, who did not perceive this alteration, could find nothing extraordinary in what St. John said of the Logos; at least they comprehended it without difficulty, while the Greeks and Grecizing Jews, on their part, brought to it prejudices and preconceptions easily reconciled with those of the evangelist, who did not expressly contradict them. This circumstance must have much favored the progress of Christianity. Thus the fathers of the church in the two first centuries and later, formed almost all in the school of Alexandria, gave to the Logos of St. John a sense nearly similar to that which it received from Philo. Their doctrine approached very near to that which in the fourth century the council of Nice condemned in the person of Arius.—G.
M. Guizot has forgotten the long residence of St. John at Ephesus, the centre of the mingling opinions of the East and West, which were gradually growing up into Gnosticism. (See Matter. Hist. du Gnosticisme, vol. i. p. 154.) St. John’s sense of the Logos seems as far removed from the simple allegory ascribed to the Palestinian Jews as from the Oriental impersonation of the Alexandrian. The simple truth may be that St. John took the familiar term, and, as it were infused into it the peculiar and Christian sense in which it is used in his writings.—M.
柏拉图主义者赞赏《约翰福音》的开篇，视之为对他们自家原理的精确誊录。Augustin de Civitat. Dei, x. 29。Amelius apud Cyril. advers. Julian. l. viii. p. 283。不过，在三、四世纪，亚历山大里亚的柏拉图主义者或许曾借暗中研习基督教神学，来改良自家的三位一体说。编者按：略加讨论圣约翰使用逻各斯（Logos）一词时所取的含义，即可证明他并非借自柏拉图哲学。这位福音书作者采用此词时未加任何预先的解释，仿佛它本是当时人早已熟悉、一见便能领会的术语。要弄清他赋予此词的含义，就须探究它在他那个时代通常所具的意义。我们发现有两种：一种是巴勒斯坦的犹太人赋予 logos 一词的，另一种则出自亚历山大里亚学派，尤其是斐洛。犹太人历来忌讳念出耶和华的圣名，遂养成一种习惯，以上帝的某一属性来指称他：有时称他为“智慧”，有时称他为“道”。“诸天藉耶和华的命而造。”（《诗篇》三十三篇6节）他们惯于寓意解经，往往把上帝的这一属性当作一个真实的存在来称呼。所罗门借“智慧”之口说：“在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就有了我。从亘古，从太初，未有世界以前，我已被立。”（《箴言》八章22、23节）他们在波斯的居留，只是更助长了这种一以贯之的寓意倾向。在西拉之子所著的《便西拉智训》以及《所罗门智训》中，我们可以读到关于“智慧”的寓意描写，如下：“我从至高者口中而出，如云雾笼罩大地；……我独自环行诸天的穹苍，行走于深渊的底处；……造物主从起初、在世界之先便造了我，我也永不衰亡。”（《便西拉智训》二十四章35—39节）另见《所罗门智训》第七章9节。〔后一部书显然属亚历山大里亚一系。—M〕由此可见，希伯来语和迦勒底语中那些意指“智慧”“道”、后又译成希腊文的词语，在犹太人的理解里不过是上帝的一种属性，被寓意地拟为人格，却并未被他们当作一个独立于上帝之外、真实而特定的存在。反之，亚历山大里亚学派——斐洛也在其中——把希腊观念与犹太、东方观念相糅合，纵情于其神秘主义的偏好，遂将逻各斯人格化，把它表述为一个独立的存在，由上帝所造，居于上帝与人之间。这便是斐洛所说的第二 logos：它自世界之初便运作，独一无二，是可感世界的创造者，由上帝依照他心中所存的理念世界塑成——而那理念世界便是第一逻各斯，是神性的长子。因此，取这层意义的逻各斯，乃是一个受造之物，只是先于世界的创造而存在，与上帝相近，并受命向人类传达他的启示。那么，在其福音书的第一章、乃至在他一切著作里，圣约翰究竟要给逻各斯一词赋予这两种意义中的哪一种呢？圣约翰是犹太人，生于巴勒斯坦、也在那里受教育；他对希腊人的哲学、以及希腊化犹太人的哲学一无所知，至少所知甚少；因此，他自然会给 logos 一词赋予巴勒斯坦犹太人所赋予的那种含义。事实上，若把他赋予 logos 的诸般属性，与《箴言》《所罗门智训》《便西拉智训》中赋予它的属性相比较，便会看出二者如出一辙。“道在世界，世界也是藉着他造的；生命在他里头，这生命就是人的光。”（第一章10—14节）在这一章里，犹太人对那寓意化的逻各斯所形成的观念，是无论如何都抹不去痕迹的。他的前人只是诗意地把它拟人化，而这位福音书作者随后却真正地把它人格化了，因为他断言：“道成了肉身。”（第14节）他之所以写作，正是为了证明这一点。细加考察，他所给出的逻各斯观念，与斐洛及亚历山大里亚学派的观念并不相合；恰恰相反，倒与巴勒斯坦犹太人的观念一致。或许圣约翰在借一个人所共知的术语去阐明一条尚不为人知的教义时，略微改动了它的含义；正是这一改动，在我们比对他著作中不同段落时，似乎显露了出来。值得一提的是：巴勒斯坦的犹太人既未察觉这一改动，便也不觉得圣约翰论逻各斯的话有何奇异之处，至少毫无困难地理解了它；而另一方面，希腊人与希腊化的犹太人，则各带成见与先入之念来读它，而这些成见又极易与这位并未明白加以反驳的福音书作者的看法相调和。这一情形想必大大有助于基督教的传播。于是，头两个世纪乃至其后的教会教父，既几乎全都出自亚历山大里亚学派，便给圣约翰的逻各斯赋予了一种与斐洛所赋予的近乎相同的意义；他们的学说，同四世纪尼西亚会议在阿里乌斯身上所定罪的那一套已相去无几。—G 基佐先生忘了圣约翰曾长期居于以弗所——那里正是东西方各种见解交汇之地，而这些见解正渐渐孕育成诺斯替主义。（参见 Matter, Hist. du Gnosticisme, vol. i. p. 154。）圣约翰对逻各斯的理解，似乎既远离归于巴勒斯坦犹太人的那种单纯寓意，也远离亚历山大里亚人那种东方式的位格化。简单的真相或许是：圣约翰取用了这个人所熟悉的术语，仿佛把他著作中所用的那种独特而属基督教的意义注入了其中。—M
21
See Beausobre, Hist. Critique du Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 377. The Gospel according to St. John is supposed to have been published about seventy years after the death of Christ.
参见 Beausobre, Hist. Critique du Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 377。据信《约翰福音》成书于基督死后约七十年。
22
The sentiments of the Ebionites are fairly stated by Mosheim (p. 331) and Le Clerc, (Hist. Eccles. p. 535.) The Clementines, published among the apostolical fathers, are attributed by the critics to one of these sectaries.
伊便尼派的主张，莫斯海姆（p. 331）与勒克莱尔（Hist. Eccles. p. 535）都作了平实的陈述。收在使徒教父著作中的《克莱门特文集》，批评家们认为出自这一宗派中某人之手。
23
Stanch polemics, like a Bull, (Judicium Eccles. Cathol. c. 2,) insist on the orthodoxy of the Nazarenes; which appears less pure and certain in the eyes of Mosheim, (p. 330.)
像布尔（Judicium Eccles. Cathol. c. 2）这样坚定的论战者，力主拿撒勒派信仰纯正；而在莫斯海姆看来（p. 330），这信仰却不那么纯粹、也不那么确凿。
24
The humble condition and sufferings of Jesus have always been a stumbling-block to the Jews. “Deus... contrariis coloribus Messiam depinxerat: futurus erat Rex, Judex, Pastor,” &c. See Limborch et Orobio Amica Collat. p. 8, 19, 53-76, 192-234. But this objection has obliged the believing Christians to lift up their eyes to a spiritual and everlasting kingdom.
耶稣卑微的处境与所受的苦难，向来是犹太人的绊脚石。“Deus... contrariis coloribus Messiam depinxerat: futurus erat Rex, Judex, Pastor”云云（上帝以相反的色彩描绘弥赛亚：他将为王、为审判者、为牧者）。参见 Limborch et Orobio Amica Collat. p. 8, 19, 53-76, 192-234。但正是这一诘难，迫使笃信的基督徒把目光抬向一个属灵而永恒的国度。
25
Justin Martyr, Dialog. cum Tryphonte, p. 143, 144. See Le Clerc, Hist. Eccles. p. 615. Bull and his editor Grabe (Judicium Eccles. Cathol. c. 7, and Appendix) attempt to distort either the sentiments or the words of Justin; but their violent correction of the text is rejected even by the Benedictine editors.
Justin Martyr, Dialog. cum Tryphonte, p. 143, 144。参见 Le Clerc, Hist. Eccles. p. 615。布尔及其编订者格拉贝（Judicium Eccles. Cathol. c. 7, and Appendix）试图曲解查士丁的思想或原话；但他们对文本的强行改订，连本笃会的编订者也不予采纳。
26
The Arians reproached the orthodox party with borrowing their Trinity from the Valentinians and Marcionites. See Beausobre, Hist. de Manicheisme, l. iii. c. 5, 7.
阿里乌斯派指责正统一方，说他们的三位一体教义是从瓦伦廷派和马西昂派那里借来的。参见 Beausobre, Hist. de Manicheisme, l. iii. c. 5, 7。
27
Non dignum est ex utero credere Deum, et Deum Christum.... non dignum est ut tanta majestas per sordes et squalores muli eris transire credatur. The Gnostics asserted the impurity of matter, and of marriage; and they were scandalized by the gross interpretations of the fathers, and even of Augustin himself. See Beausobre, tom. ii. p. 523, * Note: The greater part of the Docetæ rejected the true divinity of Jesus Christ, as well as his human nature. They belonged to the Gnostics, whom some philosophers, in whose party Gibbon has enlisted, make to derive their opinions from those of Plato. These philosophers did not consider that Platonism had undergone continual alterations, and that those who gave it some analogy with the notions of the Gnostics were later in their origin than most of the sects comprehended under this name Mosheim has proved (in his Instit. Histor. Eccles. Major. s. i. p. 136, sqq and p. 339, sqq.) that the Oriental philosophy, combined with the cabalistical philosophy of the Jews, had given birth to Gnosticism. The relations which exist between this doctrine and the records which remain to us of that of the Orientals, the Chaldean and Persian, have been the source of the errors of the Gnostic Christians, who wished to reconcile their ancient notions with their new belief. It is on this account that, denying the human nature of Christ, they also denied his intimate union with God, and took him for one of the substances (æons) created by God. As they believed in the eternity of matter, and considered it to be the principle of evil, in opposition to the Deity, the first cause and principle of good, they were unwilling to admit that one of the pure substances, one of the æons which came forth from God, had, by partaking in the material nature, allied himself to the principle of evil; and this was their motive for rejecting the real humanity of Jesus Christ. See Ch. G. F. Walch, Hist. of Heresies in Germ. t. i. p. 217, sqq. Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. ii. p 639.—G.
“Non dignum est ex utero credere Deum, et Deum Christum.... non dignum est ut tanta majestas per sordes et squalores mulieris transire credatur.”（相信上帝、相信身为上帝的基督竟出自母腹，是不相称的……相信如此崇高的威严会经由妇人的污秽腌臜而通过，也是不相称的。）诺斯替派主张物质与婚姻皆属不洁；教父们（甚至奥古斯丁本人）粗鄙的解释，令他们大为反感。参见 Beausobre, tom. ii. p. 523。编者按：大多数幻影派既否认耶稣基督真正的神性，也否认其人性。他们属于诺斯替派；有些哲学家——吉本也附和了这一派——认为诺斯替派的观点导源于柏拉图的学说。这些哲学家没有考虑到：柏拉图主义历经不断的变迁，而其中那些与诺斯替派观念略有相似之处的部分，其源起反倒晚于此名目下所涵盖的大多数宗派。莫斯海姆已经证明（见其 Instit. Histor. Eccles. Major. s. i. p. 136 及以下、p. 339 及以下），是东方哲学与犹太人的卡巴拉哲学相结合，催生了诺斯替主义。这套学说与我们尚存的东方人、迦勒底人和波斯人教义的记载之间的种种关联，正是诺斯替派基督徒谬误的根源——他们想把自己的旧观念与新信仰调和起来。正因如此，他们既否认基督的人性，也就否认了他与上帝的紧密结合，而把他看作上帝所造的诸实体（埃翁）之一。由于他们相信物质永恒，并视之为与上帝——那第一因、至善之本原——相对立的恶之本原，便不愿承认：那些纯洁的实体之一、那些从上帝流出的埃翁之一，竟会因分有物质本性而与恶之本原结盟；这正是他们否认耶稣基督真实人性的缘由。参见 Ch. G. F. Walch, Hist. of Heresies in Germ. t. i. p. 217, sqq.。Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. ii. p. 639。—G
28
Apostolis adhuc in sæculo superstitibus apud Judæam Christi sanguine recente, et phantasma corpus Domini asserebatur. Cotelerius thinks (Patres Apostol. tom. ii. p. 24) that those who will not allow the Docetes to have arisen in the time of the Apostles, may with equal reason deny that the sun shines at noonday. These Docetes, who formed the most considerable party among the Gnostics, were so called, because they granted only a seeming body to Christ. * Note: The name of Docetæ was given to these sectaries only in the course of the second century: this name did not designate a sect, properly so called; it applied to all the sects who taught the non- reality of the material body of Christ; of this number were the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Ophites, the Marcionites, (against whom Tertullian wrote his book, De Carne Christi,) and other Gnostics. In truth, Clement of Alexandria (l. iii. Strom. c. 13, p. 552) makes express mention of a sect of Docetæ, and even names as one of its heads a certain Cassianus; but every thing leads us to believe that it was not a distinct sect. Philastrius (de Hæres, c. 31) reproaches Saturninus with being a Docete. Irenæus (adv. Hær. c. 23) makes the same reproach against Basilides. Epiphanius and Philastrius, who have treated in detail on each particular heresy, do not specially name that of the Docetæ. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. vi. c. 12,) and Clement of Alexandria, (l. vii. Strom. p. 900,) appear to be the first who have used the generic name. It is not found in any earlier record, though the error which it points out existed even in the time of the Apostles. See Ch. G. F. Walch, Hist. of Her. v. i. p. 283. Tillemont, Mempour servir a la Hist Eccles. ii. p. 50. Buddæus de Eccles. Apost. c. 5 & 7—G.
“Apostolis adhuc in sæculo superstitibus apud Judæam Christi sanguine recente, et phantasma corpus Domini asserebatur.”（当使徒尚在世、基督的血在犹太还新鲜之时，就已有人主张主的身体只是一个 phantasma，即幻影。）科特勒里乌斯认为（Patres Apostol. tom. ii. p. 24），凡不肯承认 Docetes（幻影派）在使徒时代便已兴起的人，也大可以同样的道理去否认正午艳阳当空。这些 Docetes（幻影派）是诺斯替派中最可观的一支，得名之由，在于他们只肯承认基督具有一个“看似”真实的身体。编者按：幻影派（Docetæ）之名，迟至二世纪才加于这些宗派；此名并不指称一个严格意义上的宗派，而适用于一切主张基督的物质身体并非真实的宗派，其中包括瓦伦廷派、巴西里德派、俄斐特派、马西昂派（德尔图良为驳斥他们，写了《论基督的肉身》一书），以及其他诺斯替派。诚然，亚历山大里亚的克莱门特（l. iii. Strom. c. 13, p. 552）明确提到过一个幻影派的宗派，甚至点名一个叫卡西亚努斯的人为其首领之一；但种种迹象都使我们相信，它并非一个独立的宗派。菲拉斯特里乌斯（de Hæres, c. 31）指责萨图尔尼努斯是幻影派中人。爱任纽（adv. Hær. c. 23）对巴西里德斯也作了同样的指责。埃皮法尼乌斯与菲拉斯特里乌斯曾详论每一种具体的异端，却并未专门指名幻影派这一异端。安条克主教塞拉皮翁（Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. vi. c. 12）与亚历山大里亚的克莱门特（l. vii. Strom. p. 900），似乎是最先使用这一统称的人。在更早的记载里都找不到这个名称，尽管它所指的谬误早在使徒时代便已存在。参见 Ch. G. F. Walch, Hist. of Her. v. i. p. 283。Tillemont, Mem. pour servir a la Hist. Eccles. ii. p. 50。Buddæus de Eccles. Apost. c. 5 & 7。—G
29
Some proofs of the respect which the Christians entertained for the person and doctrine of Plato may be found in De la Mothe le Vayer, tom. v. p. 135, &c., edit. 1757; and Basnage, Hist. des Juifs tom. iv. p. 29, 79, &c.
基督徒对柏拉图其人及其学说的敬重，可在 De la Mothe le Vayer, tom. v. p. 135, &c., edit. 1757 以及 Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, tom. iv. p. 29, 79, &c. 中找到若干佐证。
30
Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium heræticorum condimentarium factum. Tertullian. de Anima, c. 23. Petavius (Dogm. Theolog. tom. iii. proleg. 2) shows that this was a general complaint. Beausobre (tom. i. l. iii. c. 9, 10) has deduced the Gnostic errors from Platonic principles; and as, in the school of Alexandria, those principles were blended with the Oriental philosophy, (Brucker, tom. i. p. 1356,) the sentiment of Beausobre may be reconciled with the opinion of Mosheim, (General History of the Church, vol. i. p. 37.)
“Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium hæreticorum condimentarium factum.”（我诚心痛惜，柏拉图竟成了一切异端的调味师。）Tertullian. de Anima, c. 23。佩塔维乌斯（Dogm. Theolog. tom. iii. proleg. 2）指出，这是当时普遍的怨言。博索布尔（tom. i. l. iii. c. 9, 10）把诺斯替派的谬误追溯到柏拉图的原理；而由于在亚历山大里亚学派中，这些原理已与东方哲学相糅合（Brucker, tom. i. p. 1356），博索布尔的看法便可与莫斯海姆的意见（General History of the Church, vol. i. p. 37）相调和。
31
If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (see Dupin, Bibliothèque Ecclesiastique, tom. i. p. 66,) was the first who employed the word Triad, Trinity, that abstract term, which was already familiar to the schools of philosophy, must have been introduced into the theology of the Christians after the middle of the second century.
倘若安条克主教塞奥菲鲁斯（见 Dupin, Bibliothèque Ecclesiastique, tom. i. p. 66）确是第一个使用 Triad、Trinity（三合一、三位一体）一词的人，那么这个在各哲学学派中早已耳熟能详的抽象术语，必是在二世纪中叶之后才被引入基督徒的神学的。
32
Athanasius, tom. i. p. 808. His expressions have an uncommon energy; and as he was writing to monks, there could not be any occasion for him to affect a rational language.
Athanasius, tom. i. p. 808。他的措辞有一种非凡的力度；而且他既是写给修士们看的，也就绝无必要去“假装”使用一种理性的语言。
33
In a treatise, which professed to explain the opinions of the ancient philosophers concerning the nature of the gods we might expect to discover the theological Trinity of Plato. But Cicero very honestly confessed, that although he had translated the Timæus, he could never understand that mysterious dialogue. See Hieronym. præf. ad l. xii. in Isaiam, tom. v. p. 154.
在一部自称要阐明古代哲学家关于诸神本性之见解的论著里，我们本可指望找到柏拉图的神学三位一体。但西塞罗十分坦诚地承认：尽管他翻译过《蒂迈欧篇》（Timæus），却始终无法理解那篇神秘的对话。参见 Hieronym. præf. ad l. xii. in Isaiam, tom. v. p. 154。
34
Tertullian. in Apolog. c. 46. See Bayle, Dictionnaire, au mot Simonide. His remarks on the presumption of Tertullian are profound and interesting.
Tertullian. in Apolog. c. 46。参见 Bayle, Dictionnaire, au mot Simonide。他对德尔图良之自负的评论，深刻而有趣。
35
Lactantius, iv. 8. Yet the Probole, or Prolatio, which the most orthodox divines borrowed without scruple from the Valentinians, and illustrated by the comparisons of a fountain and stream, the sun and its rays, &c., either meant nothing, or favored a material idea of the divine generation. See Beausobre, tom. i. l. iii. c. 7, p. 548.
Lactantius, iv. 8。然而那 Probole（发出）、或曰 Prolatio（流射）——最正统的神学家们也毫无顾忌地从瓦伦廷派那里借用，并以泉与流、日与光之类的比喻来说明——要么全无意义，要么便是助长了一种把神圣之“生”视同物质过程的观念。参见 Beausobre, tom. i. l. iii. c. 7, p. 548。
36
Many of the primitive writers have frankly confessed, that the Son owed his being to the will of the Father.——See Clarke’s Scripture Trinity, p. 280-287. On the other hand, Athanasius and his followers seem unwilling to grant what they are afraid to deny. The schoolmen extricate themselves from this difficulty by the distinction of a preceding and a concomitant will. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. vi. c. 8, p. 587-603.
许多早期作者坦率承认，圣子的存在乃是出于圣父的“意志”。参见 Clarke's Scripture Trinity, p. 280-287。另一方面，阿塔纳修斯及其追随者，对于他们不敢否认之事，却又似乎不愿承认。经院学者则以“在先的”意志与“随附的”意志之别，为自己解开这一困局。Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. vi. c. 8, p. 587-603。
37
See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. ii. c. 10, p. 159.
参见 Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. ii. c. 10, p. 159。
38
Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. Plin. Epist. x. 97. The sense of Deus, Elohim, in the ancient languages, is critically examined by Le Clerc, (Ars Critica, p. 150-156,) and the propriety of worshipping a very excellent creature is ably defended by the Socinian Emlyn, (Tracts, p. 29-36, 51-145.)
“Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.”（他们彼此轮流咏唱诗歌，颂赞基督，如同颂神。）Plin. Epist. x. 97。古代语言中 Deus（上帝）、Elohim（以罗欣）二词的含义，勒克莱尔有精审的考辨（Ars Critica, p. 150-156）；而崇拜一个极其卓越的受造者是否适当，索齐尼派的埃姆林（Tracts, p. 29-36, 51-145）作了有力的辩护。
39
See Daille de Usu Patrum, and Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. x. p. 409. To arraign the faith of the Ante-Nicene fathers, was the object, or at least has been the effect, of the stupendous work of Petavius on the Trinity, (Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii.;) nor has the deep impression been erased by the learned defence of Bishop Bull. Note: Dr. Burton’s work on the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene fathers must be consulted by those who wish to obtain clear notions on this subject.—M.
参见 Daille de Usu Patrum，以及 Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. x. p. 409。指控前尼西亚教父信仰不纯，正是佩塔维乌斯那部关于三位一体的鸿篇巨著（Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii.）的目的——至少是其效果；而布尔主教博学的辩护，也未能抹去它留下的深刻印象。编者按：凡欲对此题目获得清晰认识者，必须参阅伯顿博士关于前尼西亚教父教义的著作。—M