CHAPTER IV. —THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Section 5.—Epistle
to
Diognetus.
is a very interesting and valuable production now generally
classed among those of the apostolical fathers, though formerly —I mean
among the older writers on these subjects—it was little attended to
or regarded, being hid, as it were, among the works of Justin Martyr, along
with which, or rather as a part of which, it has commonly been published. It
is in the form of a letter addressed to a person of the name of Diognetus;
and the only reason apparently for ascribing it to Justin Martyr, and
inserting it among his works, is, that we know that there was a philosopher of
that name at the court of the emperor to whom one of Justin’s apologies
was addressed. We have no external evidence as to its author, or the time at
which it was written. It bears in grernio
to have been written by one who was a disciple of the apostles, and a
teacher of the nations; and there is no evidence whatever, external or
internal, fitted to throw any doubt upon the truth of this statement.
Some critics, judging from the style of thought and writing by which it is
characterized, have pronounced a very confident opinion that it is the
production of Justin; while others, judging by the same standard, have been
equally confident that it could not have been written by the author of the
works which are universally ascribed to him. The following short extract
from Bishop Bull’s Defense of the Nicene Creed, embodies the opinion upon
this point of two very eminent authorities in patristic literature, viz., Bull
himself, and Sylburgius, whom he quotes, who has published an edition of the
works of Justin, “Epistolam autem
illam ad Diognetum plane Justinum redolere, si cum caeteris ejus scriptis
conferatur, et multa cum illis habere communia, recto observavit Fredericus
Sylburgius.”[1]
On the other hand, one of the latest writers in this country on
the subject—Dr Bennet—in a very valuable work, entitled “The Theology
of the Early Christian Church exhibited in quotations from the writers of the
first three centuries,” expresses his opinion in the following terms: “The
styles of Cicero and Tacitus, or those of Addison and Gibbon, are not more
dissimilar than the composition of Justin and that of the writer to Diognetus.
The sentences of the Martyr are loose, prolix, and inaccurate, with somewhat
of a morose tone and a foreign air; while those of the letter writer have all
the benevolent grace of the Christian, with all the elegant simplicity,
luminous terseness, and logical finish, of a practised author in his native
Greek.”[2]
And, in accordance with this view, Neander says of it, “Its
language and thoughts, as well as the silence of the ancients, prove that the
letter does not proceed from Justin.”[3]
I have no great confidence in the judgments even of eminent critics upon
questions of this sort, unless there be materials for bringing them to be
tested by same pretty definite and palpable standard; and, indeed, I have made
these quotations chiefly for the purpose of pointing out how little reliance
is to be placed upon decisions of points of this sort, which abound so much in
the writings of continental critics, and are by many of them applied very
boldly even to the different books of Scripture. In this particular case,
however, I think that the internal evidence is in favor of ascribing the
letter to Diognetus to a different author from Justin; and, as I have already
remarked, there is no proof, nor even any strong probability against the truth
of the author’s statement, whoever he may have been, that he was a disciple
of the apostles, though it has been suspected by some that the part of the
epistle where this statement occurs is an interpolation.[4]
The letter is an answer to an inquiry which had been
addressed to the author as to what was the character of the Christian
religion, and what were the reasons why he had embraced it. It is, in point of
thought, sentiment, and style, decidedly superior to the works of any of the
apostolical fathers, and is deserving of more attention than it has commonly
received. It gives a brief but spirited and effective summary of the grounds
on which the Christians had abandoned Paganism and Judaism: this is followed
by a description of the leading features in the character and personal conduct
of the Christians of that period; and then all that is peculiar in their
character and conduct is traced to the influence of the doctrines which they
had been led upon God’s authority to believe, of which a striking and
scriptural summary is presented. It does not afford us any historical
information about the government or the worship of the church at the time
when it was written. It makes known to us nothing but what we know from the
canonical Scriptures; but it shows that the doctrines which orthodox churches
have generally deduced from Scripture were taught in the church after the
apostles left it.
I have introduced here this brief reference to the letter to Diognetus,
because it is similar in its character, and in the way in which it should be
noticed, to the letters of Clement and Polycarp; and because the mention of
it leaves nothing else to be adverted to under the head of the apostolical
fathers, except the epistles of Ignatius, which are in many respects peculiar.
ENDNOTES:
[1]
Bull’s Works, Vol. 5, p. 191, Oxford, 1827.
[2]
Bennet, pp. 6, 7.
[3]
Neander, Vol. 2, p. 348, Rose’s translation.
[4]
Semisch on Justin, 1, pp. 193, 195; Neander, 2, p. 348.
