Chapter XLVII: Ecclesiastical Discord.—Part I. 第四十七章 教会的纷争——第一节

Theological History Of The Doctrine Of The Incarnation.—The Human And Divine Nature Of Christ.—Enmity Of The Patriarchs Of Alexandria And Constantinople.—St. Cyril And Nestorius. —Third General Council Of Ephesus.—Heresy Of Eutyches.—Fourth General Council Of Chalcedon.—Civil And Ecclesiastical Discord.—Intolerance Of Justinian.—The Three Chapters.—The Monothelite Controversy.—State Of The Oriental Sects:—I. The Nestorians.—II. The Jacobites.—III. The Maronites.—IV. The Armenians.—V. The Copts And Abyssinians.
道成肉身教义的神学史。——基督的人性与神性。——亚历山大里亚与君士坦丁堡两地牧首之间的仇隙。——圣西里尔与聂斯脱利。——以弗所第三次公会议。——欧迪奇的异端。——卡尔西顿第四次公会议。——世俗与教会的纷争。——查士丁尼的褊狭不容。——“三章案”。——基督一志论之争。——东方各教派的状况:——一、聂斯脱利派。——二、雅各派。——三、马龙派。——四、亚美尼亚人。——五、科普特人与阿比西尼亚人。
After the extinction of paganism, the Christians in peace and piety might have enjoyed their solitary triumph. But the principle of discord was alive in their bosom, and they were more solicitous to explore the nature, than to practice the laws, of their founder. I have already observed, that the disputes of the Trinity were succeeded by those of the Incarnation; alike scandalous to the church, alike pernicious to the state, still more minute in their origin, still more durable in their effects.
异教既已绝迹,基督徒本可在太平与虔敬之中独享其胜利。然而纷争的种子早已潜伏于他们胸中:比起躬行其创教者的诫命,他们更热衷于探究他的本性。我此前已经说过,三位一体之争方息,道成肉身之争继起;二者同样使教会蒙羞,同样贻害于国家,而其起因愈发琐屑,其流毒却愈发绵长。
It is my design to comprise in the present chapter a religious war of two hundred and fifty years, to represent the ecclesiastical and political schism of the Oriental sects, and to introduce their clamorous or sanguinary contests, by a modest inquiry into the doctrines of the primitive church. 1
我打算在本章之内,容纳一场长达两百五十年的宗教战争,勾勒东方各教派在教会与政治上的分裂,并先以一番审慎的探讨,考察早期教会的诸般教义,以此引出他们那些喧嚣乃至血腥的争斗。1
I. A laudable regard for the honor of the first proselyte has countenanced the belief, the hope, the wish, that the Ebionites, or at least the Nazarenes, were distinguished only by their obstinate perseverance in the practice of the Mosaic rites.
一、出于对最早那批皈依者名誉的一片可嘉关切,人们乐得相信、期望、乃至但愿:伊便尼派——或者至少拿撒勒派——之与众不同,仅仅在于他们固执地坚持奉行摩西的礼仪。
Their churches have disappeared, their books are obliterated: their obscure freedom might allow a latitude of faith, and the softness of their infant creed would be variously moulded by the zeal or prudence of three hundred years. Yet the most charitable criticism must refuse these sectaries any knowledge of the pure and proper divinity of Christ. Educated in the school of Jewish prophecy and prejudice, they had never been taught to elevate their hopes above a human and temporal Messiah. 2 If they had courage to hail their king when he appeared in a plebeian garb, their grosser apprehensions were incapable of discerning their God, who had studiously disguised his celestial character under the name and person of a mortal. 3 The familiar companions of Jesus of Nazareth conversed with their friend and countryman, who, in all the actions of rational and animal life, appeared of the same species with themselves. His progress from infancy to youth and manhood was marked by a regular increase in stature and wisdom; and after a painful agony of mind and body, he expired on the cross. He lived and died for the service of mankind: but the life and death of Socrates had likewise been devoted to the cause of religion and justice; and although the stoic or the hero may disdain the humble virtues of Jesus, the tears which he shed over his friend and country may be esteemed the purest evidence of his humanity. The miracles of the gospel could not astonish a people who held with intrepid faith the more splendid prodigies of the Mosaic law. The prophets of ancient days had cured diseases, raised the dead, divided the sea, stopped the sun, and ascended to heaven in a fiery chariot. And the metaphorical style of the Hebrews might ascribe to a saint and martyr the adoptive title of Son of God.
他们的教会早已湮没,他们的经籍也荡然无存;他们身处默默无闻的自由之中,信仰或可有几分伸缩的余地,而其初生信条的柔软可塑,历经三百年间或狂热或审慎之手的捏塑,遂呈现出种种不同的形貌。然而,即便最宽厚的评判,也不得不断定:这些教派对基督那纯全而真正的神性,实在一无所知。他们受教于犹太先知预言与固有成见的门下,从不曾被引导把自己的指望提升到一位属人而属世的弥赛亚之上。2 纵然他们尚有勇气,在其君王以平民装束现身时向他欢呼致敬,他们那粗陋的悟性却无从辨认出自己的上帝——这位上帝煞费苦心,把自己的天界身份深藏在一个凡人的姓名与身位之下。3 那些与拿撒勒人耶稣朝夕相处的同伴,所交谈的不过是他们的朋友和同乡;此人无论在理性的还是在肉身的一切活动中,看来都与他们同属一类。他从婴孩长成少年、再到成人,其间身量与智慧循序增长;末了,在身心的剧烈痛苦之后,他在十字架上气绝而亡。他为造福人类而生、而死;然而苏格拉底的一生一死,也同样献给了宗教与正义的事业。纵使斯多葛派的哲人或盖世的英雄,或许要鄙薄耶稣那些卑微的德行,可他为友人、为故国所洒下的泪水,却大可视为他确属凡人的最纯粹的凭证。福音书中的种种神迹,本不足以令这样一个民族惊异——他们早已以无畏的信心,笃信摩西律法中那些更为辉煌的奇事。远古的先知们曾医治疾病、令死者复生、分开海水、叫太阳止步,还曾乘着火焰的战车升上天去。而希伯来人惯用譬喻的文风,本就可能把“上帝之子”这一出于恩养的称号,加在一位圣徒兼殉道者的身上。
Yet in the insufficient creed of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, a distinction is faintly noticed between the heretics, who confounded the generation of Christ in the common order of nature, and the less guilty schismatics, who revered the virginity of his mother, and excluded the aid of an earthly father. The incredulity of the former was countenanced by the visible circumstances of his birth, the legal marriage of the reputed parents, Joseph and Mary, and his lineal claim to the kingdom of David and the inheritance of Judah. But the secret and authentic history has been recorded in several copies of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 4 which these sectaries long preserved in the original Hebrew, 5 as the sole evidence of their faith. The natural suspicions of the husband, conscious of his own chastity, were dispelled by the assurance (in a dream) that his wife was pregnant of the Holy Ghost: and as this distant and domestic prodigy could not fall under the personal observation of the historian, he must have listened to the same voice which dictated to Isaiah the future conception of a virgin. The son of a virgin, generated by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit, was a creature without example or resemblance, superior in every attribute of mind and body to the children of Adam. Since the introduction of the Greek or Chaldean philosophy, 6 the Jews 7 were persuaded of the preexistence, transmigration, and immortality of souls; and providence was justified by a supposition, that they were confined in their earthly prisons to expiate the stains which they had contracted in a former state. 8 But the degrees of purity and corruption are almost immeasurable. It might be fairly presumed, that the most sublime and virtuous of human spirits was infused into the offspring of Mary and the Holy Ghost; 9 that his abasement was the result of his voluntary choice; and that the object of his mission was, to purify, not his own, but the sins of the world. On his return to his native skies, he received the immense reward of his obedience; the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which had been darkly foretold by the prophets, under the carnal images of peace, of conquest, and of dominion. Omnipotence could enlarge the human faculties of Christ to the extend of is celestial office. In the language of antiquity, the title of God has not been severely confined to the first parent, and his incomparable minister, his only-begotten son, might claim, without presumption, the religious, though secondary, worship of a subject of a subject world.
不过,在拿撒勒派与伊便尼派那残缺不全的信条里,仍可隐约辨出一种区分:一类是异端,他们把基督的降生混同于自然界的寻常生育;另一类则是罪过稍轻的分裂者,他们敬重其母的童贞,摒除了任何属地父亲的参与。前一类人的不信,自有其出生时种种明摆着的情形作依据:其名义上的双亲约瑟与马利亚乃是合法婚配,而他又循着血脉,有资格承继大卫的王国与犹大的基业。然而,那段隐秘而真确的历史,却记载在几种《马太福音》的抄本之中;4 这些教派长久以来一直珍藏着希伯来原文的抄本,5 视之为其信仰唯一的凭据。做丈夫的自知守身清白,心生疑虑本是人之常情;然而一个梦中的保证——说他妻子乃是由圣灵受孕——打消了他的疑心。而这桩年代久远、又发生于闺闱之内的奇事,既非那位史家所能亲眼目睹,那么他所听凭的,必定与当年向以赛亚口授“必有童女怀孕”的,是同一个声音。这位童女之子,藉圣灵那难以言喻的运作而受生,乃是一个前无先例、别无可比的造物,无论心智还是形体,其一切禀赋都远在亚当的子孙之上。自从希腊或迦勒底的哲学传入以来,6 犹太人7便相信灵魂先于肉体而存在、可以轮回转世、且永不朽灭;而天意之所以公正,也可由这样一个假设来辩明:灵魂之所以被囚禁于尘世的牢狱,正是为了洗净它们在前世所沾染的污点。8 然而,灵魂纯洁与堕落的程度,几乎无从度量。于是不妨合理地推想:那注入马利亚与圣灵之子体内的,乃是人类诸灵中最崇高、最有德者;9 他甘居卑微,出于自愿的抉择;而他此番使命的宗旨,不是要洗净自身的罪,而是要洗净世人的罪。及至他重返本属自己的天界,便因其顺服而领受了无比丰厚的酬报——弥赛亚那永恒的国度。这国度早经众先知隐晦地预言过,却是借着和平、征服与统治这些属肉体的意象来描摹的。全能者大可扩充基督属人的种种能力,使之足以胜任他在天界的职分。按照古人的措辞,“上帝”这一称号并未严格限定于万有之本源的那一位;因而他那无与伦比的仆使、他的独生子,也大可名正言顺地要求这个臣属的世界向自己献上一份虽属次一等、却仍属宗教性的崇拜。
II. The seeds of the faith, which had slowly arisen in the rocky and ungrateful soil of Judea, were transplanted, in full maturity, to the happier climes of the Gentiles; and the strangers of Rome or Asia, who never beheld the manhood, were the more readily disposed to embrace the divinity, of Christ. The polytheist and the philosopher, the Greek and the Barbarian, were alike accustomed to conceive a long succession, an infinite chain of angels or daemons, or deities, or aeons, or emanations, issuing from the throne of light. Nor could it seem strange or incredible, that the first of these aeons, the Logos, or Word of God, of the same substance with the Father, should descend upon earth, to deliver the human race from vice and error, and to conduct them in the paths of life and immortality. But the prevailing doctrine of the eternity and inherent pravity of matter infected the primitive churches of the East. Many among the Gentile proselytes refused to believe that a celestial spirit, an undivided portion of the first essence, had been personally united with a mass of impure and contaminated flesh; and, in their zeal for the divinity, they piously abjured the humanity, of Christ. While his blood was still recent on Mount Calvary, 10 the Docetes, a numerous and learned sect of Asiatics, invented the phantastic system, which was afterwards propagated by the Marcionites, the Manichaeans, and the various names of the Gnostic heresy. 11 They denied the truth and authenticity of the Gospels, as far as they relate the conception of Mary, the birth of Christ, and the thirty years that preceded the exercise of his ministry. He first appeared on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; but it was a form only, and not a substance; a human figure created by the hand of Omnipotence to imitate the faculties and actions of a man, and to impose a perpetual illusion on the senses of his friends and enemies. Articulate sounds vibrated on the ears of the disciples; but the image which was impressed on their optic nerve eluded the more stubborn evidence of the touch; and they enjoyed the spiritual, not the corporeal, presence of the Son of God. The rage of the Jews was idly wasted against an impassive phantom; and the mystic scenes of the passion and death, the resurrection and ascension, of Christ were represented on the theatre of Jerusalem for the benefit of mankind. If it were urged, that such ideal mimicry, such incessant deception, was unworthy of the God of truth, the Docetes agreed with too many of their orthodox brethren in the justification of pious falsehood. In the system of the Gnostics, the Jehovah of Israel, the Creator of this lower world, was a rebellious, or at least an ignorant, spirit. The Son of God descended upon earth to abolish his temple and his law; and, for the accomplishment of this salutary end, he dexterously transferred to his own person the hope and prediction of a temporal Messiah.
二、信仰的种子,曾在犹地亚那多石而贫瘠的土壤中缓慢萌生,如今已然成熟,被移植到外邦人那片更为宜人的土地上;而罗马或亚细亚的异乡人,既然从未亲见基督为人的一面,也就更乐于接纳他为神的一面。无论多神教徒还是哲人,无论希腊人还是蛮族,都同样惯于设想:有一长串、乃至无穷无尽的天使、精灵、神祇、埃翁或流溢体,接连不断地从光明的宝座发出。因此,这些埃翁中的第一位——即逻各斯,亦即上帝之道,与圣父同属一质——竟降临尘世,以救人类脱离罪恶与谬误,引领他们走上通往生命与不朽的道路,这也就不足为奇、不足为怪了。然而,当时盛行一种学说,主张物质既是永恒的,又天生邪恶;这学说也侵染了东方的早期教会。在外邦皈依者中,许多人不肯相信:一个属天的灵——太初本质中不可分割的一部分——竟会亲身与一团污秽腐坏的血肉结合为一。于是,出于对基督神性的一片热忱,他们虔诚地摒弃了基督的人性。就在各各他山上基督的血迹尚未干涸之时,10 幻影派——亚细亚人中一个人多而博学的教派——便炮制出那套虚幻的体系;此说后来又经马西昂派、摩尼教徒以及诺斯替异端名下形形色色的支派广为传布。11 凡福音书中叙及马利亚受孕、基督诞生、以及他开始传道之前那三十年的部分,他们一概否认其真实与可信。他初次现身,是在约旦河畔,以一个完全成人的形象出现;然而那只是形象,并非实体——不过是全能者亲手造出的一具人形,用来摹仿人的种种官能与举动,好在他的友人与仇敌的感官之前,制造一场永不间断的幻象。门徒们的耳中固然回响着清晰的话语,可是印在他们视神经上的那个影像,却经不起触觉这一更为顽固的验证;他们所领受的,乃是上帝之子灵性的临在,而非肉身的临在。犹太人的满腔怒火,白白倾泻在一个毫无痛觉的幻影身上;而基督受难与死亡、复活与升天那一幕幕神秘的场景,则是在耶路撒冷这座舞台上,为了世人的益处而搬演出来的。若有人诘难说,这般虚拟的扮演、这般无休无止的欺瞒,与真理的上帝殊不相称,那么幻影派在为敬虔的谎言辩护这一点上,倒与为数过多的正统弟兄不谋而合。在诺斯替派的体系里,以色列的耶和华,这下界的创造主,乃是一个悖逆的、或至少是无知的灵。上帝之子降临尘世,为要废除这位神的圣殿与律法;而为了成就这一有益的目的,他巧妙地把那关于一位属世弥赛亚的指望与预言,尽数移到了自己身上。
One of the most subtile disputants of the Manichaean school has pressed the danger and indecency of supposing, that the God of the Christians, in the state of a human foetus, emerged at the end of nine months from a female womb. The pious horror of his antagonists provoked them to disclaim all sensual circumstances of conception and delivery; to maintain that the divinity passed through Mary like a sunbeam through a plate of glass; and to assert, that the seal of her virginity remained unbroken even at the moment when she became the mother of Christ. But the rashness of these concessions has encouraged a milder sentiment of those of the Docetes, who taught, not that Christ was a phantom, but that he was clothed with an impassible and incorruptible body. Such, indeed, in the more orthodox system, he has acquired since his resurrection, and such he must have always possessed, if it were capable of pervading, without resistance or injury, the density of intermediate matter. Devoid of its most essential properties, it might be exempt from the attributes and infirmities of the flesh. A foetus that could increase from an invisible point to its full maturity; a child that could attain the stature of perfect manhood without deriving any nourishment from the ordinary sources, might continue to exist without repairing a daily waste by a daily supply of external matter. Jesus might share the repasts of his disciples without being subject to the calls of thirst or hunger; and his virgin purity was never sullied by the involuntary stains of sensual concupiscence. Of a body thus singularly constituted, a question would arise, by what means, and of what materials, it was originally framed; and our sounder theology is startled by an answer which was not peculiar to the Gnostics, that both the form and the substance proceeded from the divine essence. The idea of pure and absolute spirit is a refinement of modern philosophy: the incorporeal essence, ascribed by the ancients to human souls, celestial beings, and even the Deity himself, does not exclude the notion of extended space; and their imagination was satisfied with a subtile nature of air, or fire, or aether, incomparably more perfect than the grossness of the material world. If we define the place, we must describe the figure, of the Deity. Our experience, perhaps our vanity, represents the powers of reason and virtue under a human form. The Anthropomorphites, who swarmed among the monks of Egypt and the Catholics of Africa, could produce the express declaration of Scripture, that man was made after the image of his Creator. 12 The venerable Serapion, one of the saints of the Nitrian deserts, relinquished, with many a tear, his darling prejudice; and bewailed, like an infant, his unlucky conversion, which had stolen away his God, and left his mind without any visible object of faith or devotion. 13
摩尼教派中一位最善诡辩的论客,曾极力申说这样一种设想的危险与不雅:基督徒的上帝,竟以人类胎儿的状态,在怀胎九月之后,从一个女人的子宫里娩出。他的论敌满怀虔敬的惊骇,被激得矢口否认受孕与分娩中一切涉及肉体的情节:他们坚称,那神性穿过马利亚,就如一缕阳光穿过一块玻璃;又断言,即便在她成为基督之母的那一刻,她童贞的封印依然完好无损。然而,这些让步失之孟浪,反倒助长了幻影派中一派较为温和的主张:他们所教导的,并非说基督是个幻影,而是说他披着一具不受苦、不朽坏的身体。诚然,在较为正统的体系中,基督自复活以后所得的正是这样一具身体;而假如这身体能够毫无阻碍、毫无损伤地穿透中间那些致密的物质,那么他就必定一直拥有这样一具身体。这身体既已丧失血肉最根本的属性,也就可以免除血肉的种种特征与孱弱。一个能从肉眼看不见的一点长到完全成熟的胎儿,一个无需从寻常来源摄取任何养分便能长成十足成人身量的孩子,自然也能够不必靠逐日摄入外物来补偿逐日的消耗,而照样存活下去。耶稣尽可与门徒同席共餐,却不受饥渴的驱迫;他那童贞般的洁净,也从不曾被肉欲那些不由自主的污点所玷染。关于这样一具构造奇特的身体,便会生出一个问题:它最初是凭什么方法、用什么材料造成的?对此有一个答案——它并非诺斯替派所独有——足以令我们较为健全的神学大吃一惊,那就是:无论形象还是实质,都出自神的本质。“纯粹而绝对的精神”这一观念,乃是近世哲学精雕细琢的产物;古人赋予人类灵魂、天界众生、乃至上帝本身的那种无形本质,并不排斥空间广延之意——他们的想象,满足于一种由空气、火或以太构成的精微质地,其完美远非粗浊的物质世界所能比拟。我们若要界定上帝所在的处所,就不得不描摹上帝的形貌。我们的经验——或许竟是我们的虚荣——总把理性与德性的力量,描绘成人的形状。神人同形论者在埃及的修士与阿非利加的大公教徒中间比比皆是,他们能援引《圣经》上明白无误的宣告:人是照着造他之主的形象受造的。12 德高望重的塞拉皮翁,是尼特里亚荒漠中的圣者之一。他洒了无数眼泪,才舍弃自己那珍爱已久的成见;他像个婴孩似的痛哭,哀叹这场不幸的归正夺走了他的上帝,害得他心中再无一个看得见的对象可供信仰与敬拜。13
III. Such were the fleeting shadows of the Docetes. A more substantial, though less simple, hypothesis, was contrived by Cerinthus of Asia, 14 who dared to oppose the last of the apostles. Placed on the confines of the Jewish and Gentile world, he labored to reconcile the Gnostic with the Ebionite, by confessing in the same Messiah the supernatural union of a man and a God; and this mystic doctrine was adopted with many fanciful improvements by Carpocrates, Basilides, and Valentine, 15 the heretics of the Egyptian school. In their eyes, Jesus of Nazareth was a mere mortal, the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary: but he was the best and wisest of the human race, selected as the worthy instrument to restore upon earth the worship of the true and supreme Deity. When he was baptized in the Jordan, the Christ, the first of the aeons, the Son of God himself, descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, to inhabit his mind, and direct his actions during the allotted period of his ministry. When the Messiah was delivered into the hands of the Jews, the Christ, an immortal and impassible being, forsook his earthly tabernacle, flew back to the pleroma or world of spirits, and left the solitary Jesus to suffer, to complain, and to expire. But the justice and generosity of such a desertion are strongly questionable; and the fate of an innocent martyr, at first impelled, and at length abandoned, by his divine companion, might provoke the pity and indignation of the profane. Their murmurs were variously silenced by the sectaries who espoused and modified the double system of Cerinthus. It was alleged, that when Jesus was nailed to the cross, he was endowed with a miraculous apathy of mind and body, which rendered him insensible of his apparent sufferings. It was affirmed, that these momentary, though real, pangs would be abundantly repaid by the temporal reign of a thousand years reserved for the Messiah in his kingdom of the new Jerusalem. It was insinuated, that if he suffered, he deserved to suffer; that human nature is never absolutely perfect; and that the cross and passion might serve to expiate the venial transgressions of the son of Joseph, before his mysterious union with the Son of God. 16
三、幻影派的种种玄想,不过如此这般转瞬即逝的虚影罢了。亚细亚的克林妥14则构想出一套更为坚实、却也不那么单纯的假说;他竟敢与最后一位使徒相抗。他身处犹太世界与外邦世界的交界之地,力图调和诺斯替派与伊便尼派:他承认在同一位弥赛亚身上,超自然地结合了一个人与一位神。这套神秘的学说,后来被埃及学派的异端——卡尔波克拉特、巴西里德斯与瓦伦丁15——所采纳,并添上了种种异想天开的改动。在他们看来,拿撒勒人耶稣不过是个凡人,是约瑟与马利亚的合法婚生子;然而他又是人类中最善良、最智慧者,被拣选出来,充当合宜的器皿,以在世上重建对独一至高真神的崇拜。当他在约旦河受洗时,那基督——众埃翁中的第一位,上帝之子本身——化作鸽子的形状降在耶稣身上,住进他的心灵,在他既定的传道期间指引他的一举一动。及至弥赛亚被交到犹太人手中,那基督——一个不朽而不受苦的存在——便弃下自己属地的居所,飞回普勒罗玛,即那灵界,撇下孤零零的耶稣去受苦、去哀号、去断气。然而,这样一走了之,究竟是否公道、是否厚道,实在大可置疑;一位无辜的殉道者,先是被他那神圣的同伴驱使着上路,末了又被那同伴抛弃,如此下场,难免会激起局外俗人的怜悯与愤慨。对于这类怨言,那些信奉并修订了克林妥“双重体系”的教派,各出机杼地加以平息。有的说,耶稣被钉上十字架时,身心都被赋予一种神奇的麻木无感,使他对表面上所受的苦楚浑然不觉;有的断言,这些痛楚虽真切,却只是一瞬之事,日后必将得到丰厚的补偿:弥赛亚将在他那新耶路撒冷的国度里,享有一千年的现世统治;有的则暗示:他若受苦,那也是他该受的;人性从来不是绝对完美的;而十字架与受难,或许正好用来赎清约瑟之子在与上帝之子神秘结合之前所犯的那些可恕的小过。16
IV. All those who believe the immateriality of the soul, a specious and noble tenet, must confess, from their present experience, the incomprehensible union of mind and matter. A similar union is not inconsistent with a much higher, or even with the highest, degree of mental faculties; and the incarnation of an aeon or archangel, the most perfect of created spirits, does not involve any positive contradiction or absurdity. In the age of religious freedom, which was determined by the council of Nice, the dignity of Christ was measured by private judgment according to the indefinite rule of Scripture, or reason, or tradition. But when his pure and proper divinity had been established on the ruins of Arianism, the faith of the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall and the manifold inconveniences of their creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They hesitated to pronounce; that God himself, the second person of an equal and consubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; 17 that a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that his eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified; that his impassible essence had felt pain and anguish; that his omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Calvary. These alarming consequences were affirmed with unblushing simplicity by Apollinaris, 18 bishop of Laodicea, and one of the luminaries of the church. The son of a learned grammarian, he was skilled in all the sciences of Greece; eloquence, erudition, and philosophy, conspicuous in the volumes of Apollinaris, were humbly devoted to the service of religion. The worthy friend of Athanasius, the worthy antagonist of Julian, he bravely wrestled with the Arians and Polytheists, and though he affected the rigor of geometrical demonstration, his commentaries revealed the literal and allegorical sense of the Scriptures. A mystery, which had long floated in the looseness of popular belief, was defined by his perverse diligence in a technical form; and he first proclaimed the memorable words, “One incarnate nature of Christ,” which are still reechoed with hostile clamors in the churches of Asia, Egypt, and Aethiopia. He taught that the Godhead was united or mingled with the body of a man; and that the Logos, the eternal wisdom, supplied in the flesh the place and office of a human soul. Yet as the profound doctor had been terrified at his own rashness, Apollinaris was heard to mutter some faint accents of excuse and explanation. He acquiesced in the old distinction of the Greek philosophers between the rational and sensitive soul of man; that he might reserve the Logos for intellectual functions, and employ the subordinate human principle in the meaner actions of animal life.
四、凡是相信灵魂无形这一说法的人——这原是一条既堂皇又高尚的信条——单凭自己眼下的切身经验,就不得不承认心灵与物质之间那种难以索解的结合。这样一种结合,与远为高级、乃至最高级的心智能力也并无扞格;因此,一位埃翁或天使长——受造诸灵中最完美者——道成肉身,本身并不含有任何确凿的矛盾或荒谬。在尼西亚会议所划定的那个宗教自由的时代,基督的尊格全凭各人的私见去衡量,所依据的不过是《圣经》、理性或传统这些含混不定的准绳。然而,一旦基督那纯全而真正的神性在阿里乌斯派的废墟之上得以确立,大公教徒的信仰便颤巍巍地立在了悬崖的边缘:退既不能,立又危殆,坠更可怖;而他们那套神学愈是崇高玄奥,其信条中重重叠叠的窘境也就愈发深重。他们迟迟不敢断言:上帝本身,那平等同质的三位一体中的第二位格,曾在肉身中显现;17 那位遍满宇宙的存在,曾被拘于马利亚的胎中;他那永恒的绵延,曾以人生的日、月、年来度量;那全能者,曾遭鞭打、被钉十字架;他那不受苦的本质,曾感到痛楚与悲苦;他那全知,也未能免于无知;而生命与不朽的源头,竟在各各他山上气绝身亡。这些骇人的推论,竟被拉奥迪西亚的主教阿波利纳里斯18——教会的一盏明灯——以毫不脸红的坦率一一肯定下来。他是一位博学文法家的儿子,精通希腊的一切学问;阿波利纳里斯的著述中,雄辩、博识与哲思处处可见,却都谦卑地奉献于宗教的事业。他堪称阿塔纳修斯当之无愧的朋友、尤利安当之无愧的对手,勇敢地与阿里乌斯派和多神教徒角力;他虽刻意摆出几何论证般的严谨架势,其注疏却揭示了《圣经》字面与寓意的双重含义。一桩奥秘,本来一直松散地飘浮在民间信仰之中,却被他那用错了地方的勤勉,界定成了一个专门的术语;他率先宣告了那句可堪铭记的话——“基督道成肉身之后惟具一性”——这句话至今仍在亚细亚、埃及与埃塞俄比亚的各教会中,伴着敌意的喧嚣回响不绝。他教导说,神性与一个人的身体相结合、乃至相混融;而那逻各斯,即永恒的智慧,在肉身之中取代了人的灵魂,充当了它的位置与职分。然而,这位精深的博士也被自己的孟浪吓住了,于是人们听见阿波利纳里斯低声嗫嚅出几句辩解与解释。他默认了希腊哲人由来已久的那个区分,即把人的灵魂分为理性灵魂与感性灵魂;如此一来,他便可把逻各斯留给理智的功能,而让那从属的人性成分去承担饮食起居这类较低下的活动。
With the moderate Docetes, he revered Mary as the spiritual, rather than as the carnal, mother of Christ, whose body either came from heaven, impassible and incorruptible, or was absorbed, and as it were transformed, into the essence of the Deity. The system of Apollinaris was strenuously encountered by the Asiatic and Syrian divines whose schools are honored by the names of Basil, Gregory and Chrysostom, and tainted by those of Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius. But the person of the aged bishop of Laedicea, his character and dignity, remained inviolate; and his rivals, since we may not suspect them of the weakness of toleration, were astonished, perhaps, by the novelty of the argument, and diffident of the final sentence of the Catholic church. Her judgment at length inclined in their favor; the heresy of Apollinaris was condemned, and the separate congregations of his disciples were proscribed by the Imperial laws. But his principles were secretly entertained in the monasteries of Egypt, and his enemies felt the hatred of Theophilus and Cyril, the successive patriarchs of Alexandria.
他与温和派的幻影派一样,把马利亚尊为基督属灵的母亲,而非属肉体的母亲;基督的身体要么来自天上,不受苦、不朽坏,要么被吸纳、仿佛被转化,融入了神性的本质之中。阿波利纳里斯的这套体系,遭到亚细亚与叙利亚神学家们的极力反对;这些学派中,既有巴西尔、格列高利与克里索斯托这些为之增光的名字,也有狄奥多罗斯、狄奥多尔与聂斯脱利这些使之蒙污的名字。但拉奥迪西亚这位年迈主教其人、其品格与尊荣,始终不容侵犯;至于他的那些对手,既然我们不便疑心他们有宽容这种软弱,那么想必是被这套论证的新奇所震慑,又对大公教会最终的裁断心存疑虑。教会的裁断终于偏向了他们这一边:阿波利纳里斯的异端遭到谴责,他门徒们另立的会众也被帝国法律所取缔。然而,他的那套主张,仍在埃及的修道院里被暗中信奉;而他的敌人,则领教了塞奥菲鲁斯与西里尔——亚历山大里亚两任牧首——的仇恨。
V. The grovelling Ebionite, and the fantastic Docetes, were rejected and forgotten: the recent zeal against the errors of Apollinaris reduced the Catholics to a seeming agreement with the double nature of Cerinthus. But instead of a temporary and occasional alliance, they established, and we still embrace, the substantial, indissoluble, and everlasting union of a perfect God with a perfect man, of the second person of the trinity with a reasonable soul and human flesh. In the beginning of the fifth century, the unity of the two natures was the prevailing doctrine of the church. On all sides, it was confessed, that the mode of their coexistence could neither be represented by our ideas, nor expressed by our language. Yet a secret and incurable discord was cherished, between those who were most apprehensive of confounding, and those who were most fearful of separating, the divinity, and the humanity, of Christ. Impelled by religious frenzy, they fled with adverse haste from the error which they mutually deemed most destructive of truth and salvation. On either hand they were anxious to guard, they were jealous to defend, the union and the distinction of the two natures, and to invent such forms of speech, such symbols of doctrine, as were least susceptible of doubt or ambiguity. The poverty of ideas and language tempted them to ransack art and nature for every possible comparison, and each comparison misled their fancy in the explanation of an incomparable mystery. In the polemic microscope, an atom is enlarged to a monster, and each party was skilful to exaggerate the absurd or impious conclusions that might be extorted from the principles of their adversaries. To escape from each other, they wandered through many a dark and devious thicket, till they were astonished by the horrid phantoms of Cerinthus and Apollinaris, who guarded the opposite issues of the theological labyrinth. As soon as they beheld the twilight of sense and heresy, they started, measured back their steps, and were again involved in the gloom of impenetrable orthodoxy. To purge themselves from the guilt or reproach of damnable error, they disavowed their consequences, explained their principles, excused their indiscretions, and unanimously pronounced the sounds of concord and faith. Yet a latent and almost invisible spark still lurked among the embers of controversy: by the breath of prejudice and passion, it was quickly kindled to a mighty flame, and the verbal disputes 19 of the Oriental sects have shaken the pillars of the church and state.
五、卑琐的伊便尼派与荒诞的幻影派,都遭到摒弃、被人遗忘;而新近针对阿波利纳里斯谬误的一番热忱,反倒使大公教徒陷入一种表面上认同克林妥“二性说”的境地。不过,他们所确立的并非一种临时的、偶然的联合,而是完全的上帝与完全的人之间那种实质的、不可分解的、永恒的结合,是三位一体中第二位格与一个理性灵魂及人的血肉的结合——这也是我们至今仍然信奉的。到五世纪初,二性合一已成为教会中占主导地位的教义。各方都承认,这二性并存的方式,既非我们的观念所能表述,也非我们的语言所能道出。然而,一种隐秘而无从化解的不和,始终潜藏于两派之间:一派最怕把基督的神性与人性混为一谈,另一派则最怕把二者割裂开来。在宗教狂热的驱使下,两派各自朝着相反的方向仓皇奔逃,唯恐落入对方眼中那足以彻底葬送真理与救恩的谬误。两边都急于守护、都严加捍卫二性之间的合一与区分,并竭力发明一些最不易滋生疑义或含混的措辞方式与教理表述。观念与语言的贫乏,诱使他们遍搜人工造物与自然万象,去寻找一切可能的类比;而每一个类比,在解说这桩无从比拟的奥秘时,都把他们的想象引入了歧途。在论战的显微镜下,一粒原子被放大成一头怪物;每一方都善于夸大对方原则中或可硬逼出来的那些荒谬或渎神的结论。为了摆脱对方,他们在一丛丛幽暗而曲折的密林中徘徊游荡,直到蓦然被克林妥与阿波利纳里斯那两个可怖的幽灵吓住——这两个幽灵,正把守着神学迷宫两端的出口。他们一望见那理智与异端交界处的微光,便惊退回来,循原路折返,重又陷入了密不透光的正统之幽暗。为了洗刷自己在那该受天谴的谬误上所背负的罪责或恶名,他们纷纷否认由其立论推出的种种结论,辩解自己的原则,为自己的失言开脱,并异口同声地念出和睦与信仰的调子。然而,在这场争论的余烬之中,仍潜伏着一星几乎看不见的火花;一经偏见与激情吹拂,它转眼便被煽成熊熊烈焰,于是东方各教派这场文字上的争执,19竟撼动了教会与国家的柱石。
The name of Cyril of Alexandria is famous in controversial story, and the title of saint is a mark that his opinions and his party have finally prevailed. In the house of his uncle, the archbishop Theophilus, he imbibed the orthodox lessons of zeal and dominion, and five years of his youth were profitably spent in the adjacent monasteries of Nitria. Under the tuition of the abbot Serapion, he applied himself to ecclesiastical studies, with such indefatigable ardor, that in the course of one sleepless night, he has perused the four Gospels, the Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle to the Romans. Origen he detested; but the writings of Clemens and Dionysius, of Athanasius and Basil, were continually in his hands: by the theory and practice of dispute, his faith was confirmed and his wit was sharpened; he extended round his cell the cobwebs of scholastic theology, and meditated the works of allegory and metaphysics, whose remains, in seven verbose folios, now peaceably slumber by the side of their rivals. 20 Cyril prayed and fasted in the desert, but his thoughts (it is the reproach of a friend) 21 were still fixed on the world; and the call of Theophilus, who summoned him to the tumult of cities and synods, was too readily obeyed by the aspiring hermit. With the approbation of his uncle, he assumed the office, and acquired the fame, of a popular preacher. His comely person adorned the pulpit; the harmony of his voice resounded in the cathedral; his friends were stationed to lead or second the applause of the congregation; 22 and the hasty notes of the scribes preserved his discourses, which in their effect, though not in their composition, might be compared with those of the Athenian orators. The death of Theophilus expanded and realized the hopes of his nephew. The clergy of Alexandria was divided; the soldiers and their general supported the claims of the archdeacon; but a resistless multitude, with voices and with hands, asserted the cause of their favorite; and after a period of thirty-nine years, Cyril was seated on the throne of Athanasius. 23
亚历山大里亚的西里尔,其名在论战的历史上赫赫有名;而“圣徒”这一头衔,正标志着他的主张与他的党羽最终占了上风。他在其舅父、大主教塞奥菲鲁斯的家中,汲取了正统那套关于狂热与专断的功课;他青年时代有五年光阴,颇有成效地消磨在附近尼特里亚的修道院里。在院长塞拉皮翁的教导下,他以不知疲倦的热忱钻研教会的学问,甚至曾在一个不眠之夜里,一口气通读了四福音书、大公书信以及《罗马书》。奥利金他向来厌恶;但克莱门斯与狄奥尼修斯、阿塔纳修斯与巴西尔的著作,却始终不离他手。他在争辩的理论与实践中,既坚固了自己的信仰,又磨利了自己的机锋;他在斗室四周结满了经院神学的蛛网,潜心于寓意解经与形而上学之作——这些作品的残篇,如今装成七大卷冗长的对开本,安然沉睡在它们那些对手的身旁。20 西里尔在荒漠中祈祷、禁食,可他的心思(这是一位友人对他的责备)21却依旧牵挂着尘世;及至塞奥菲鲁斯召他去投身城市与教会会议的喧嚣,这位野心勃勃的隐修士便迫不及待地应命而去。在舅父的首肯之下,他担起了大众讲道者的职分,也博得了这方面的名声。他仪表堂堂,为讲坛增色;他嗓音谐美,回荡在大教堂中;他的友人则被安插在会众之间,或带头、或帮腔地鼓掌喝彩;22而书记们匆匆记下的笔记,保存了他的讲辞——这些讲辞就效果而言(尽管就文采而言并非如此),或可与雅典演说家们的辞令相媲美。塞奥菲鲁斯之死,使他外甥的种种指望既得以扩张,又得以实现。亚历山大里亚的教士各执一词;士兵及其将领拥护那位首席助祭的诉求;然而,一群无从抵挡的民众,或高声呐喊、或挥动拳脚,力主他们所宠爱者的主张。于是,在阿塔纳修斯故世三十九年之后,西里尔登上了阿塔纳修斯的宝座。23

Notes 注释

1
By what means shall I authenticate this previous inquiry, which I have studied to circumscribe and compress?—If I persist in supporting each fact or reflection by its proper and special evidence, every line would demand a string of testimonies, and every note would swell to a critical dissertation. But the numberless passages of antiquity which I have seen with my own eyes, are compiled, digested and illustrated by Petavius and Le Clerc, by Beausobre and Mosheim. I shall be content to fortify my narrative by the names and characters of these respectable guides; and in the contemplation of a minute or remote object, I am not ashamed to borrow the aid of the strongest glasses: 1. The Dogmata Theologica of Petavius are a work of incredible labor and compass; the volumes which relate solely to the Incarnation (two folios, vth and vith, of 837 pages) are divided into xvi. books—the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine. The Jesuit’s learning is copious and correct; his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected; but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candor, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause. 2. The Arminian Le Clerc, who has composed in a quarto volume (Amsterdam, 1716) the ecclesiastical history of the two first centuries, was free both in his temper and situation; his sense is clear, but his thoughts are narrow; he reduces the reason or folly of ages to the standard of his private judgment, and his impartiality is sometimes quickened, and sometimes tainted by his opposition to the fathers. See the heretics (Cerinthians, lxxx. Ebionites, ciii. Carpocratians, cxx. Valentiniins, cxxi. Basilidians, cxxiii. Marcionites, cxli., &c.) under their proper dates. 3. The Histoire Critique du Manicheisme (Amsterdam, 1734, 1739, in two vols. in 4to., with a posthumous dissertation sur les Nazarenes, Lausanne, 1745) of M. de Beausobre is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins with incomparable art the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or a heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive; he betrays an amiable partiality in favor of the weaker side, and, while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism. A copious table of contents will direct the reader to any point that he wishes to examine. 4. Less profound than Petavius, less independent than Le Clerc, less ingenious than Beausobre, the historian Mosheim is full, rational, correct, and moderate. In his learned work, De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum (Helmstadt 1753, in 4to.,) see the Nazarenes and Ebionites, p. 172—179, 328—332. The Gnostics in general, p. 179, &c. Cerinthus, p. 196—202. Basilides, p. 352—361. Carpocrates, p. 363—367. Valentinus, p. 371—389 Marcion, p. 404—410. The Manichaeans, p. 829-837, &c.
我这番先行的探讨,一直力求划定范围、加以压缩,可要拿什么来为它取信于人呢?——倘若我坚持为每一桩事实、每一点议论都提供各自专门的凭据,那么每一行都得附上一长串佐证,每一条注释都会膨胀成一篇考据论文。好在古代那无数段落,凡我亲眼所见的,佩塔维乌斯与勒克莱尔、博索布尔与莫斯海姆都已一一辑录、消化并加以阐明。我甘愿借这几位可敬向导的姓名与学识来加固我的叙述;而在端详一件细微或遥远的对象时,我也不以借助最强的镜片为耻:一、佩塔维乌斯的《神学教义》(Dogmata Theologica)是一部工力与篇幅都惊人的巨著;其中专论道成肉身的部分(第五、第六两卷对开本,共八百三十七页)分为十六卷——首卷讲历史,其余讲论争与教义。这位耶稣会士学识渊博而精确,拉丁文纯正,条理清晰,论证深刻且前后连贯;然而,一旦教父、真理与坦诚有碍于天主教的立场,他便成了教父的奴仆、异端的鞭子、真理与坦诚的敌人。二、阿米尼乌派的勒克莱尔,曾以一册四开本(阿姆斯特丹,1716年)撰写了头两个世纪的教会史;他无论性情还是处境都很自由,见识清明,思路却偏狭;他把历代的明智与愚妄,一概削足适履地纳入自己私见的尺度,而他的公允,时而因反对教父而愈显锐利,时而又因此而受了沾染。诸异端可各按其相应年代查阅(克林妥派,80年;伊便尼派,103年;卡尔波克拉特派,120年;瓦伦廷派,121年;巴西里德派,123年;马西昂派,141年;等等)。三、博索布尔先生的《摩尼教批判史》(Histoire Critique du Manicheisme,阿姆斯特丹,1734、1739年,两卷四开本,附遗著《论拿撒勒派》〔sur les Nazarenes〕,洛桑,1745年)乃古代哲学与神学的一座宝库。这位博学的史家,以无与伦比的手艺纺出各派学说的系统脉络,时而化身为圣徒,时而化身为哲人,时而又化身为异端。只是他的精细有时未免过度:他流露出一种可爱的偏袒,总向较弱的一方倾斜;他固然提防中伤诽谤,却没有给迷信与狂热留出足够的余地。一份详尽的目录,可指引读者查阅他想考究的任何一点。四、史家莫斯海姆虽不及佩塔维乌斯精深,不及勒克莱尔独立,也不及博索布尔巧思,却写得充实、通达、精确而持平。在其博学之作《君士坦丁以前的基督教史》(De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum,赫尔姆施泰特,1753年,四开本)中,可查阅拿撒勒派与伊便尼派,第172—179、328—332页;诺斯替派总论,第179页以下;克林妥,第196—202页;巴西里德斯,第352—361页;卡尔波克拉特,第363—367页;瓦伦丁,第371—389页;马西昂,第404—410页;摩尼教徒,第829—837页,等等。
2
Jew Tryphon, (Justin. Dialog. p. 207) in the name of his countrymen, and the modern Jews, the few who divert their thoughts from money to religion, still hold the same language, and allege the literal sense of the prophets. * Note: See on this passage Bp. Kaye, Justin Martyr, p. 25.—M. Note: Most of the modern writers, who have closely examined this subject, and who will not be suspected of any theological bias, Rosenmüller on Isaiah ix. 5, and on Psalm xlv. 7, and Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, c. xx., rightly ascribe much higher notions of the Messiah to the Jews. In fact, the dispute seems to rest on the notion that there was a definite and authorized notion of the Messiah, among the Jews, whereas it was probably so vague, as to admit every shade of difference, from the vulgar expectation of a mere temporal king, to the philosophic notion of an emanation from the Deity.—M.
犹太人特里丰(Justin. Dialog. p. 207)代表其同胞发言;而当今的犹太人——那少数肯把心思从钱财转向宗教的人——至今仍持同样的论调,并援引先知书的字面意义。 编者按:关于这一段,参见凯主教《殉道者查士丁》,第25页。—M 编者按:大多数曾就此题目细加考察、且不致被疑心怀有任何神学偏见的近代学者——罗森米勒(论《以赛亚书》九章5节、《诗篇》四十五篇7节)以及贝尔托尔特(《犹太人的基督论》〔Christologia Judaeorum〕第二十章)——都正确地把远为高远的弥赛亚观念归诸犹太人。其实,这场争论似乎建立在一个假定之上,即犹太人中间存在一种确定而公认的弥赛亚观念;然而那观念大概极为含混,足以容纳种种深浅不一的差别:从俗众所期盼的一位单纯的现世君王,直到哲人所构想的一种从神那里流溢而出的存在。—M
3
Chrysostom (Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, tom. v. c. 9, p. 183) and Athanasius (Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. i. c. 2, p. 3) are obliged to confess that the Divinity of Christ is rarely mentioned by himself or his apostles.
克里索斯托(Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, tom. v. c. 9, p. 183)与阿塔纳修斯(Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. i. c. 2, p. 3)都不得不承认:无论基督本人还是他的使徒,都极少提及基督的神性。
4
The two first chapters of St. Matthew did not exist in the Ebionite copies, (Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 13;) and the miraculous conception is one of the last articles which Dr. Priestley has curtailed from his scanty creed. * Note: The distinct allusion to the facts related in the two first chapters of the Gospel, in a work evidently written about the end of the reign of Nero, the Ascensio Isaiae, edited by Archbishop Lawrence, seems convincing evidence that they are integral parts of the authentic Christian history.—M.
《马太福音》头两章在伊便尼派的抄本中并不存在(Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 13);而童贞受孕,则是普里斯特利博士从其本已单薄的信条中最后删去的条款之一。 编者按:《以赛亚升天记》(Ascensio Isaiae,由劳伦斯大主教编订)显然写成于尼禄在位末年,其中对福音书头两章所载诸事有清晰的暗指,这似乎有力地证明了:那两章原是真确的基督教史不可分割的组成部分。—M
5
It is probable enough that the first of the Gospels for the use of the Jewish converts was composed in the Hebrew or Syriac idiom: the fact is attested by a chain of fathers—Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerom, &c. It is devoutly believed by the Catholics, and admitted by Casaubon, Grotius, and Isaac Vossius, among the Protestant critics. But this Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is most unaccountably lost; and we may accuse the diligence or fidelity of the primitive churches, who have preferred the unauthorized version of some nameless Greek. Erasmus and his followers, who respect our Greek text as the original Gospel, deprive themselves of the evidence which declares it to be the work of an apostle. See Simon, Hist. Critique, &c., tom. iii. c. 5—9, p. 47—101, and the Prolegomena of Mill and Wetstein to the New Testament. * Note: Surely the extinction of the Judaeo-Christian community related from Mosheim by Gibbon himself (c. xv.) accounts both simply and naturally for the loss of a composition, which had become of no use—nor does it follow that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew is unauthorized.—M.
极有可能,最早那部供犹太皈依者使用的福音书,是以希伯来文或叙利亚文写成的:这一点有一连串教父可作佐证——帕皮亚斯、爱任纽、奥利金、哲罗姆等等。天主教徒对此深信不疑,而新教批评家中,卡索邦、格劳秀斯与伊萨克·福修斯也予以承认。然而,这部希伯来文的《马太福音》却莫名其妙地失传了;我们大可责怪早期教会的勤勉或忠信有亏,因为他们竟宁取某个无名希腊人所译、未经认可的版本。伊拉斯谟及其追随者把我们现有的希腊文本奉为原初的福音书,这样一来,反倒使自己丧失了那足以宣告此书出自一位使徒之手的凭证。参见 Simon, Hist. Critique, &c., tom. iii. c. 5—9, p. 47—101,以及米尔与韦特施泰因为《新约》所作的导言(Prolegomena)。 编者按:吉本自己(见第十五章)曾据莫斯海姆叙述过犹太基督徒团体的灭绝;这一史实,本就足以既简单又自然地解释一部已然无用的著作何以失传——却并不能由此推出圣马太的希腊文福音书未经认可。—M
6
The metaphysics of the soul are disengaged by Cicero (Tusculan. l. i.) and Maximus of Tyre (Dissertat. xvi.) from the intricacies of dialogue, which sometimes amuse, and often perplex, the readers of the Phoedrus, the Phoedon, and the Laws of Plato.
西塞罗(Tusculan. l. i.)与提尔的马克西穆斯(Dissertat. xvi.)把关于灵魂的形而上学,从对话体那些错综纠缠中剥离出来;而柏拉图的《斐德罗篇》《斐多篇》与《法律篇》,其对话体时而令读者会心,却往往令读者困惑。
7
The disciples of Jesus were persuaded that a man might have sinned before he was born, (John, ix. 2,) and the Pharisees held the transmigration of virtuous souls, (Joseph. de Bell. Judaico, l. ii. c. 7;) and a modern Rabbi is modestly assured, that Hermes, Pythagoras, Plato, &c., derived their metaphysics from his illustrious countrymen.
耶稣的门徒相信,一个人在出生以前便可能犯过罪(约翰福音九章2节);法利赛人则主张有德之人的灵魂可以轮回转世(Joseph. de Bell. Judaico, l. ii. c. 7);而一位近世的拉比更谦逊地深信,赫尔墨斯、毕达哥拉斯、柏拉图等人的形而上学,皆源出于他那些声名显赫的同胞。
8
Four different opinions have been entertained concerning the origin of human souls: 1. That they are eternal and divine. 2. That they were created in a separate state of existence, before their union with the body. 3. That they have been propagated from the original stock of Adam, who contained in himself the mental as well as the corporeal seed of his posterity. 4. That each soul is occasionally created and embodied in the moment of conception.—The last of these sentiments appears to have prevailed among the moderns; and our spiritual history is grown less sublime, without becoming more intelligible.
关于人类灵魂的起源,历来有四种不同的见解:一、灵魂是永恒而神圣的。二、灵魂是在与肉体结合之前,于一种独立的存在状态中被造出来的。三、灵魂是从亚当这一原初的族源繁衍而来的,亚当自身既含有其后裔肉体的种子,也含有其精神的种子。四、每个灵魂都是随时被造,并在受孕的那一刻被赋予形体。——这最后一种看法,似乎已在近人中间占了上风;于是我们那部灵魂的历史变得不那么崇高了,却也并未因此变得更好理解。
9
It was one of the fifteen heresies imputed to Origen, and denied by his apologist, (Photius, Bibliothec. cod. cxvii. p. 296.) Some of the Rabbis attribute one and the same soul to the persons of Adam, David, and the Messiah.
这是加在奥利金头上的十五条异端之一,其辩护者曾予以否认(Photius, Bibliothec. cod. cxvii. p. 296)。有些拉比认为,亚当、大卫与弥赛亚三者,同具一个灵魂。
10
Apostolis adhuc in seculo superstitibus, apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recente, Phantasma domini corpus asserebatur. Hieronym, advers. Lucifer. c. 8. The epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, and even the Gospel according to St. John, are levelled against the growing error of the Docetes, who had obtained too much credit in the world, (1 John, iv. 1—5.)
Apostolis adhuc in seculo superstitibus, apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recente, Phantasma domini corpus asserebatur.(大意:使徒尚在世间、基督受难的血迹在犹地亚犹新之时,便已有人主张主的身体只是幻影。)Hieronym, advers. Lucifer. c. 8. 伊格纳修致士麦那人的书信,乃至《约翰福音》,都是针对幻影派日渐蔓延的谬误而发的;此派当时在世上博得了过多的信从(约翰一书四章1—5节)。
11
About the year 200 of the Christian aera, Irenaeus and Hippolytus efuted the thirty-two sects, which had multiplied to fourscore in the time of Epiphanius, (Phot. Biblioth. cod. cxx. cxxi. cxxii.) The five books of Irenaeus exist only in barbarous Latin; but the original might perhaps be found in some monastery of Greece.
约在基督纪元200年前后,爱任纽与希波吕托斯驳斥了当时的三十二个教派;到埃皮法尼乌斯的时代,这些教派已繁衍至八十个(Phot. Biblioth. cod. cxx. cxxi. cxxii.)。爱任纽的五卷书如今只存粗劣的拉丁译本;但其希腊原文,或许还能在希腊某座修道院中寻见。
12
The pilgrim Cassian, who visited Egypt in the beginning of the vth century, observes and laments the reign of anthropomorphism among the monks, who were not conscious that they embraced the system of Epicurus, (Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, i. 18, 34.) Ab universo propemodum genere monachorum, qui per totam provinciam Egyptum morabantur, pro simplicitatis errore susceptum est, ut e contraric memoratum pontificem (Theophilus) velut haeresi gravissima depravatum, pars maxima seniorum ab universo fraternitatis corpore decerneret detestandum, (Cassian, Collation. x. 2.) As long as St. Augustin remained a Manichaean, he was scandalized by the anthropomorphism of the vulgar Catholics.
朝圣者卡西安努斯于五世纪初造访埃及,目睹并慨叹神人同形论在修士中间大行其道;这些修士并不自知,他们所拥抱的其实是伊壁鸠鲁的那一套(Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, i. 18, 34)。Ab universo propemodum genere monachorum, qui per totam provinciam Egyptum morabantur, pro simplicitatis errore susceptum est, ut e contrario memoratum pontificem (Theophilus) velut haeresi gravissima depravatum, pars maxima seniorum ab universo fraternitatis corpore decerneret detestandum(大意:几乎全埃及行省的修士,都因这种出于头脑简单的谬见,以致大多数长老竟把前述那位主教〔塞奥菲鲁斯〕当作犯了极重异端而堕落之人,主张全体修道团都该唾弃他)(Cassian, Collation. x. 2)。圣奥古斯丁只要一日还是摩尼教徒,便一日以俗众大公教徒的神人同形论为可耻。
13
Ita est in oratione senex mente confusus, eo quod illam imaginem Deitatis, quam proponere sibi in oratione consueverat, aboleri de suo corde sentiret, ut in amarissimos fletus, crebrosque singultus repente prorumpens, in terram prostratus, cum ejulatu validissimo proclamaret; “Heu me miserum! tulerunt a me Deum meum, et quem nunc teneam non habeo, vel quem adorem, aut interpallam am nescio.” Cassian, Collat. x. 2.
Ita est in oratione senex mente confusus, eo quod illam imaginem Deitatis, quam proponere sibi in oratione consueverat, aboleri de suo corde sentiret, ut in amarissimos fletus, crebrosque singultus repente prorumpens, in terram prostratus, cum ejulatu validissimo proclamaret; “Heu me miserum! tulerunt a me Deum meum, et quem nunc teneam non habeo, vel quem adorem, aut interpellem nescio.”(大意:这位老人在祷告中心神大乱,因为他觉察到,那向来惯于在祷告时呈现于自己心中的上帝形象,如今正从他心里被抹去;于是他蓦地放声痛哭,抽噎不止,扑倒在地,凄厉哀号道:“我好苦啊!他们夺走了我的上帝,如今我再没有可以持守的对象,也不知道该敬拜谁、该向谁祈求了。”)Cassian, Collat. x. 2。
14
St. John and Cerinthus (A.D. 80. Cleric. Hist. Eccles. p. 493) accidentally met in the public bath of Ephesus; but the apostle fled from the heretic, lest the building should tumble on their heads. This foolish story, reprobated by Dr. Middleton, (Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii.,) is related, however, by Irenaeus, (iii. 3,) on the evidence of Polycarp, and was probably suited to the time and residence of Cerinthus. The obsolete, yet probably the true, reading of 1 John, iv. 3 alludes to the double nature of that primitive heretic. * Note: Griesbach asserts that all the Greek Mss., all the translators, and all the Greek fathers, support the common reading.—Nov. Test. in loc.—M
圣约翰与克林妥(公元80年。Cleric. Hist. Eccles. p. 493)曾在以弗所的公共浴场偶然相遇;然而这位使徒竟避开那异端而逃,唯恐浴场的房屋会塌下来压在他们头上。这则荒唐的故事,虽经米德尔顿博士斥为无稽(Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii.),却由爱任纽(iii. 3)依据波利卡普的说法记载了下来,而它大概也与克林妥所处的时代与居地相合。《约翰一书》四章3节那已被废弃、却大概是真确的读法,暗指这位早期异端的“双重本性”。 编者按:格里斯巴赫断言,所有希腊文抄本、所有译本、所有希腊教父,都支持通行的读法(见 Nov. Test. in loc.)。—M
15
The Valentinians embraced a complex, and almost incoherent, system. 1. Both Christ and Jesus were aeons, though of different degrees; the one acting as the rational soul, the other as the divine spirit of the Savior. 2. At the time of the passion, they both retired, and left only a sensitive soul and a human body. 3. Even that body was aethereal, and perhaps apparent.—Such are the laborious conclusions of Mosheim. But I much doubt whether the Latin translator understood Irenaeus, and whether Irenaeus and the Valetinians understood themselves.
瓦伦廷派奉行一套繁复、且几乎自相矛盾的体系。一、基督与耶稣都是埃翁,只是等级有别:一个充当理性的灵魂,另一个充当救主的神圣之灵。二、受难之际,二者都退出了,只留下一个感性的灵魂和一具人的身体。三、连那身体也是以太所成,或许只是幻影。——以上便是莫斯海姆费尽心力得出的结论。但我很怀疑那位拉丁译者是否读懂了爱任纽,也怀疑爱任纽与瓦伦廷派是否读懂了他们自己。
16
The heretics abused the passionate exclamation of “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Rousseau, who has drawn an eloquent, but indecent, parallel between Christ and Socrates, forgets that not a word of impatience or despair escaped from the mouth of the dying philosopher. In the Messiah, such sentiments could be only apparent; and such ill-sounding words were properly explained as the application of a psalm and prophecy.
异端们滥用了那句悲怆的呼喊:“我的上帝,我的上帝,为什么离弃我?”卢梭曾在基督与苏格拉底之间作过一番雄辩、却有失体统的类比,他却忘了:这位垂死的哲人口中,从未吐出一个字的焦躁或绝望。至于弥赛亚,这类情绪只能是表面上的;而那些听来刺耳的话,理当解释为对一篇诗篇与预言的引用。
17
This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul, (1 Tim. iii. 16;) but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word which was altered to God at Constantinople in the beginning of the vith century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac versions, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as of the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his two letters translated by M. de Missy, in the Journal Britannique, tom. xv. p. 148—190, 351—390.) I have weighed the arguments, and may yield to the authority of the first of philosophers, who was deeply skilled in critical and theological studies. Note: It should be Griesbach in loc. The weight of authority is so much against the common reading in both these points, that they are no longer urged by prudent controversialists. Would Gibbon’s deference for the first of philosophers have extended to all his theological conclusions?—M.
这一强硬的说法,或可借圣保罗的措辞来支持(提摩太前书三章16节);但我们却被现代的圣经译本蒙骗了。原来那个词,是六世纪初在君士坦丁堡被改成了“上帝”:真正的读法,在拉丁文与叙利亚文的译本中犹清晰可见,也仍保留在希腊教父与拉丁教父的论证之中;这一伪窜,连同圣约翰“三证人”那一处,都被艾萨克·牛顿爵士出色地揭破了(参见德米西先生所译牛顿的两封信,载《不列颠杂志》〔Journal Britannique〕第十五卷,第148—190、351—390页)。我掂量过这些论据,或许愿意折服于这位头号哲人的权威——他于校勘与神学之学,皆造诣精深。 编者按:此处应作格里斯巴赫(Griesbach in loc.)。就这两点而言,权威的分量都极不利于通行的读法,以致审慎的论争者已不再提出这类主张。吉本对这位头号哲人的敬服,是否也会推及此人一切的神学结论呢?—M
18
For Apollinaris and his sect, see Socrates, l. ii. c. 46, l. iii. c. 16 Sazomen, l. v. c. 18, 1. vi. c. 25, 27. Theodoret, l. v. 3, 10, 11. Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. vii. p. 602—638. Not. p. 789—794, in 4to. Venise, 1732. The contemporary saint always mentions the bishop of Laodicea as a friend and brother. The style of the more recent historians is harsh and hostile: yet Philostorgius compares him (l. viii. c. 11-15) to Basil and Gregory.
关于阿波利纳里斯及其教派,参见教会史家苏格拉底(Socrates, l. ii. c. 46, l. iii. c. 16)、索佐门(Sozomen, l. v. c. 18, l. vi. c. 25, 27)、狄奥多勒(Theodoret, l. v. 3, 10, 11),以及蒂耶蒙《教会史论集》(Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. vii. p. 602—638,注释见 p. 789—794,四开本,威尼斯,1732年)。与他同时代的那位圣者,提到这位拉奥迪西亚主教时,总以朋友和弟兄相称;较晚近的史家笔调则严厉而充满敌意;然而菲洛斯托尔吉乌斯(l. viii. c. 11—15)却把他与巴西尔、格列高利相提并论。
19
I appeal to the confession of two Oriental prelates, Gregory Abulpharagius the Jacobite primate of the East, and Elias the Nestorian metropolitan of Damascus, (see Asseman, Bibliothec. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 291, tom. iii. p. 514, &c.,) that the Melchites, Jacobites, Nestorians, &c., agree in the doctrine, and differ only in the expression. Our most learned and rational divines—Basnage, Le Clerc, Beausobre, La Croze, Mosheim, Jablonski—are inclined to favor this charitable judgment; but the zeal of Petavius is loud and angry, and the moderation of Dupin is conveyed in a whisper.
我援引东方两位高级教士的自白为证:雅各派东方首席主教格列高利·阿布·法拉杰,以及聂斯脱利派大马士革都主教伊莱亚斯(见 Asseman, Bibliothec. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 291, tom. iii. p. 514, &c.),他们都承认:麦尔基派、雅各派、聂斯脱利派等等,在教义上原本一致,所分歧的仅在于措辞。我们那些最博学、最明理的神学家——巴纳日、勒克莱尔、博索布尔、拉克罗兹、莫斯海姆、亚布隆斯基——大多倾向于赞同这一宽厚的论断;然而佩塔维乌斯的热忱却是既高声又愤懑,迪潘的持平之见则只敢低声耳语。
20
La Croze (Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 24) avows his contempt for the genius and writings of Cyril. De tous les on vrages des anciens, il y en a peu qu’on lise avec moins d’utilite: and Dupin, (Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique, tom. iv. p. 42—52,) in words of respect, teaches us to despise them.
拉克罗兹(Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 24)直言他鄙薄西里尔的才智与著作:“De tous les ouvrages des anciens, il y en a peu qu’on lise avec moins d’utilité”(大意:古人的一切著作中,读来最无裨益的,此人的作品要算其一);而迪潘(Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique, tom. iv. p. 42—52)虽措辞恭敬,却教我们对这些著作不屑一顾。
21
Of Isidore of Pelusium, (l. i. epist. 25, p. 8.) As the letter is not of the most creditable sort, Tillemont, less sincere than the Bollandists, affects a doubt whether this Cyril is the nephew of Theophilus, (Mem. Eccles. tom. xiv. p. 268.)
语出佩鲁西乌姆的伊西多尔(l. i. epist. 25, p. 8)。由于这封信内容不甚光彩,蒂耶蒙便不如博兰德学派来得坦诚,故作疑惑,佯称拿不准这位西里尔究竟是不是塞奥菲鲁斯的外甥(Mem. Eccles. tom. xiv. p. 268)。
22
A grammarian is named by Socrates (l. vii. c. 13).
教会史家苏格拉底(l. vii. c. 13)提到过一位文法家的名字。
23
See the youth and promotion of Cyril, in Socrates, (l. vii. c. 7) and Renaudot, (Hist. Patriarchs. Alexandrin. p. 106, 108.) The Abbe Renaudot drew his materials from the Arabic history of Severus, bishop of Hermopolis Magma, or Ashmunein, in the xth century, who can never be trusted, unless our assent is extorted by the internal evidence of facts.
关于西里尔的早年与擢升,参见教会史家苏格拉底(l. vii. c. 7)与勒诺多(Hist. Patriarchs. Alexandrin. p. 106, 108)。勒诺多神父的材料,取自十世纪大赫尔莫波利斯(又名阿什穆宁)主教塞维鲁的一部阿拉伯文史书;此人的记述断不可轻信,除非有事实的内在证据硬逼着我们首肯。