diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:00:36 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:00:36 -0700 |
| commit | 5b44e5ff6f370cdc807e96ec60e3f6870f8eaf52 (patch) | |
| tree | 354c025bee4f3473c2df73332c6310949a2989b7 /19613-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '19613-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 19613-h/19613-h.htm | 18229 |
1 files changed, 18229 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/19613-h/19613-h.htm b/19613-h/19613-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c9a7cc --- /dev/null +++ b/19613-h/19613-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,18229 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> + + <title>Harnack's History of Dogma, Vol. II.</title> + + <style type="text/css"> + <!-- + body {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + p {text-align: justify;} + blockquote {text-align: justify;} + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center;} + + hr {text-align: center; width: 50%;} + html>body hr {margin-right: 25%; margin-left: 25%; width: 50%;} + hr.full {width: 100%;} + html>body hr.full {margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 0%; width: 100%;} + hr.short {text-align: center; width: 20%;} + html>body hr.short {margin-right: 40%; margin-left: 40%; width: 20%;} + + .note, .footnote + {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + + span.pagenum + {position: absolute; left: 1%; right: 91%; font-size: 8pt;} + + --> + </style> +</head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +Project Gutenberg's History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7), by Adolph Harnack + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7) + +Author: Adolph Harnack + +Translator: Neil Buchanan + +Release Date: October 24, 2006 [EBook #19613] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF DOGMA, VOLUME 2 (OF 7) *** + + + + +Produced by Dave Maddock, David King, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + <hr class="full" /> +<h1>HISTORY OF DOGMA</h1> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h2>DR. ADOLPH HARNACK</h2> +<h3>ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF +THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN</h3> + +<h3><i>TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION</i></h3> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h2>NEIL BUCHANAN</h2> + + +<h2>VOL. II.</h2> + +<center>BOSTON<br/> +LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY<br/> +1901</center> + + + + +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> + + +<p><a href="#CHAP_I">CHAPTER I.—Historical Survey</a></p> + +<p>The Old and New Elements in the formation of the +Catholic Church; The fixing of that which is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, +Collection of Writings, Organization, Cultus); +The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, +the Apologists; +Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; +Clement and Origen; +Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most important +Institutions; +Difficulties in determining the importance of individual +Personalities; +Differences of development in the Churches of different +countries.</p> + +<p><a href="#PART_I">I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A +CHURCH</a></p> + +<p><a href="#CHAP_II">CHAPTER II.—The setting up of the Apostolic Standards +for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church</a></p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_II_A">A. The transformation of the Baptismal Confession into +the Apostolic Rule of Faith</a></p> + +<p>Necessities for setting up the Apostolic Rule of Faith; +The Rule of Faith is the Baptismal Confession definitely +interpreted; +Estimate of this transformation; +Irenæus; +Tertullian; +Results of the transformation; +Slower development in Alexandria: Clement and Origen.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_II_B">B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches +as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a +collection of Apostolic Writings</a></p> + +<p>Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the +year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church; +Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Muratorian +Fragment, in (Melito) Irenæus and Tertullian; +Conditions under which the New Testament originated; +Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings +that were read in the Churches; +Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon, +manner of using and results of the New Testament; +The Apostolic collection of writings can be proved at +first only in those Churches in which we find the +Apostolic Rule of Faith; probably there was no New +Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in +Alexandria (Clement); +Probable history of the genesis of the New Testament +in Alexandria up to the time of Origen; +ADDENDUM. The results which the creation of the New +Testament produced in the following period.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_II_C">C. The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the +Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the +remodelling of the conception of the Church</a></p> + +<p>The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities +which were founded by the Apostles; +By the "Elders"; +By the Bishops of Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles); +By the Bishops as such, who have received the Apostolic +<i>Charisma veritatis</i>; +Excursus on the conceptions of the Alexandrians; +The Bishops as successors of the Apostles; +Original idea of the Church as the Holy Community +that comes from Heaven and is destined for it; +The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting +on the Law of Faith; +Obscurities in the idea of the Church as held by Irenæus +and Tertullian; +By Clement and Origen; +Transition to the Hierarchical idea of the Church; +The Hierarchical idea of the Church: Calixtus and Cyprian; +Appendix I. Cyprian's idea of the Church and the actual +circumstances; +Appendix II. Church and Heresy; +Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences +of the new idea of the Church.</p> + +<p><a href="#CHAP_III">CHAPTER III.—Continuation.—The Old Christianity and +the New Church</a></p> + +<p>Introduction; +The Original Montanism; +The later Montanism as the dregs of the movement +and as the product of a compromise; +The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by +the Catholic Bishops: importance of the victory for +the Church; +History of penance: the old practice; +The laxer practice in the days of Tertullian and Hippolytus; +The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian; +Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea +of the Church; the Church no longer a Communion +of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salvation +and a Holy Institution and thereby a <i>corpus permixtum</i>; +After effect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian; +Origen's idea of the Church; +Novatian's idea of the Church and of penance, the +Church of the Catharists; +Conclusion: the Catholic Church as capable of being a +support to society and the state; +Addenda I. The Priesthood; +Addenda II. Sacrifice; +Addenda III. Means of Grace. Baptism and the Eucharist; +Excursus to Chapters II. and III.—Catholic and Roman.</p> + +<p><a href="#PART_II">II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS +A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE</a></p> + +<p><a href="#CHAP_IV">CHAPTER IV.—Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy; +The Apologists</a></p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_IV_I">1. Introduction</a></p> + +<p>The historical position of the Apologists; +Apologists and Gnostics; +Nature and importance of the Apologists' theology.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_IV_II">2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation</a></p> + +<p>Aristides; +Justin; +Athenagoras; +Miltiades, Melito; +Tatian; +Pseudo-Justin, Orat. ad Gr.; +Theophilus; +Pseudo-Justin, de Resurr.; +Tertullian and Minucius; +Pseudo-Justin, de Monarch.; +Results</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_IV_III">3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and +rational religion</a></p> + +<p>Arrangement; +The Monotheistic Cosmology; +Theology; +Doctrine of the Logos; +Doctrine of the World and of Man; +Doctrine of Freedom and Morality; +Doctrine of Revelation (Proofs from Prophecy); +Significance of the History of Jesus; +Christology of Justin; +Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin's +doctrines.</p> + +<p><a href="#CHAP_V">CHAPTER V.—The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-theological +interpretation and revision of the Rule of Faith in +opposition to Gnosticism, on the basis of the New +Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the Apologists, +Melito, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian</a></p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_V_I">1. The theological position of Irenæus and of the later +contemporary Church teachers</a></p> + +<p>Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic +Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition; +Loose structure of their Dogmas; +Irenæus' attempt to construct a systematic theology and +his fundamental theological convictions; +Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology; +Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ +(recapitulatio); +His conception of a history of salvation; +His historical significance: conserving of tradition and +gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_V_II">2. The Old Catholic Fathers' doctrine of the Church</a></p> + +<p>The Antithesis to Gnosticism; +The "Scripture theology" as a sign of the dependence +on "Gnosticism" and as a means of conserving tradition; +The Doctrine of God; +The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus; +(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit); +Irenæus' doctrine of the Logos; +(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit); +The views of Irenæus regarding the destination of man, +the original state, the fall and the doom of death +(the disparate series of ideas in Irenæus; rudiments +of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian); +The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God; +Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the +divine and human elements; +Significance of Mary; +Tertullian's doctrine of the two natures and its origin; +Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenæus; +The Gnostic character of this doctrine; +Christology of Hippolytus; +Views as to Christ's work; +Redemption, Perfection; +Reconciliation; +Categories for the fruit of Christ's work; +Things peculiar to Tertullian; +Satisfacere Deo; +The Soul as the Bride of Christ; +The Eschatology; +Its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation +and the advantage of connection with that; +Conflict with Chiliasm in the East; +The doctrine of the two Testaments; +The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two +Testaments, the <i>complexus oppositorum</i>; the Old Testament +a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists; +The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New +Testament and a compound Book; +The stages in the history of salvation; +The law of freedom the climax of the revelation in Christ.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_V_III">3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, +(Cyprian, Novation)</a></p> + +<p><a href="#CHAP_VI">CHAPTER VI.—The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition +into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of +the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church: +Clement and Origen</a></p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_VI_I">(1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of +Alexandria</a></p> + +<p>Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the +second and the beginning of the third century; +scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian +Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus, +Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage)</p> + +<p>The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement</p> + +<p>The temper of Clement and his importance in the +History of Dogma; his relation to Irenæus, to the +Gnostics and to primitive Christianity; his philosophy +of Religion; +Clement and Origen.</p> + +<p><a href="#SEC_VI_II">(2) The system of Origen</a></p> + +<p>Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen; +The Elements of Origen's theology; its Gnostic features; +The relative view of Origen; +His temper and final aim: relation to Greek Philosophy; +Theology as a Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmological +speculation; +Porphyry on Origen; +The neutralising of History, esoteric and exoteric +Christianity; +Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system; +Sources of truth, doctrine of Scripture.</p> + +<p>I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding; +Doctrine of God; +Doctrine of the Logos; +Clement's doctrine of the Logos; +Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; +Doctrine of Spirits.</p> + +<p>II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences; +Doctrine of Man.</p> + +<p>III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration; +The notions necessary to the Psychical; +The Christology; +The Appropriation of Salvation; +The Eschatology; +Concluding Remarks: The importance of this system +to the following period.</p> + + + + +<h2>DIVISION I</h2> + +<h2>BOOK II.</h2> + +<h3>THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS.</h3> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page1" id="page1"></a>[pg 1]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="CHAP_I" id="CHAP_I"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>HISTORICAL SURVEY.</h3> + + +<p>The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian +communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with +Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual development +of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early +Christian enthusiasm. The general result was the establishment +of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and +the same time a political commonwealth, school and union for +worship, was based on the firm foundation of an "apostolic" +law of faith, a collection of "apostolic" writings, and finally, +an "apostolic" organisation. This institution was <i>the Catholic +Church</i>.<a id="footnotetag1" name="footnotetag1"></a><a href="#footnote1"><sup>1</sup></a> In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main +articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity +were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and +thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first +the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but +of a formal, character. Hence they were not noticed by any of +those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated +to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page2" id="page2"></a>[pg 2]</span> +How great the innovations actually were, however, may be +measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage +of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the immediateness +of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest +limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed +that there were still a considerable number of Christians who +valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, +defeated. The fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic +necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the apostolic +doctrine was also essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. +This assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were +legitimised by tracing them to the Apostles, meant the separation +of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the +latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and +discipline into a communion "eiusdem sacramenti," that is, into +a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doctrinal +law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine +institution.<a id="footnotetag2" name="footnotetag2"></a><a href="#footnote2"><sup>2</sup></a></p> + +<p>The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes +its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page3" id="page3"></a>[pg 3]</span> +over Gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part +of early Christian tradition. If Gnosticism in all its phases was +the violent attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of +the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief +in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Catholicism, +inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, preserved +the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early +Christian writings, thereby saving—as far as documents, at least, +were concerned—and proclaiming the authority of an important +part of primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged +as a conservative force born from the vigour of Christianity. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page4" id="page4"></a>[pg 4]</span> +If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look +at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a +creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing +Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have +always continued to be accessible. If the founder of the Christian +religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a life in accordance +with it to be compatible with membership of the Synagogue +and observance of the Jewish law, there could at least be no +impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church.</p> + +<p>Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism +never clearly put the question, "What is Christian?" Instead +of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the +recognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. +This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too +narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it +bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; +too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction +of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective +covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. +It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most +extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit +into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. In +the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly +disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating +a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in +earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves +as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no +longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political +commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside +other things.<a id="footnotetag3" name="footnotetag3"></a><a href="#footnote3"><sup>3</sup></a> In ever increasing measure it invested all the +forms which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, +that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured +Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an +obscure and difficult matter. But, in Catholicism, religion for the +first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. Catholic Christianity +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page5" id="page5"></a>[pg 5]</span> +discovered the formula which reconciled faith and knowledge. +This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the +blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even +after it had itself already become a fetter.</p> + +<p>Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of +developments. In the one were set up fixed outer standards +for determining what is Christian, and these standards were +proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. The baptismal confession +was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic +law of faith. A collection of apostolic writings was formed from +those read in the Churches, and this compilation was placed on +an equal footing with the Old Testament. The episcopal and +monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the +attribute of successor of the Apostles was conferred on the +bishop. Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration +of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to +the Apostles. The result of these institutions was a strictly +exclusive Church in the form of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, +and law, a confederation which more and more gathered +the various communities within its pale, and brought about the +decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation was primarily +based on a common confession, which, however, was not +only conceived as "law," but was also very soon supplemented +by new standards. One of the most important problems to be +investigated in the history of dogma, and one which unfortunately +cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities +led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circumstances +required the appearance of living authorities in the +communities, and what relation was established between the +apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the +apostolic office. The development ended with the formation of a +clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in +himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. +He disposed of the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, +and therefore in every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage.</p> + +<p>But even apart from the content which Christianity here +received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising +of the Church, This would be self-evident enough, even if it +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page6" id="page6"></a>[pg 6]</span> +were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had +already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called Gnosticism +(See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de præscr. 35). But +the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, +suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded +as one originally belonging and essential to Christianity. The +depotentiation to which Christianity was here subjected appears +still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian hopes were +deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was tolerated +and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional +devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to +confine themselves to very narrow limits.</p> + +<p>But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we +turn our attention to the second series of developments that +make up the history of this period. The Church did not merely +set up dykes and walls against Gnosticism in order to ward it +off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the +facts which were the objects of her belief and hope; but, taking the +creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own +special territory and to combat it with a scientific theology. +That was a necessity which did not first spring from Christianity's +own internal struggles. It was already involved in the fact that +the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who +felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and +the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer +to all the pressing questions which then occupied men's minds.</p> + +<p>The beginning of a development which a century later reached +its provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in +the transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of +ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as +we already find it before the middle of the second century. As +regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimising +of Greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. +The theology of Origen bears the same relation to the New +Testament as that of Philo does to the Old. What is here +presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophy +of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to +all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from any +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page7" id="page7"></a>[pg 7]</span> +connection with Greek mythology and gross polytheism.<a id="footnotetag4" name="footnotetag4"></a><a href="#footnote4"><sup>4</sup></a> A +motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived +from both Testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, +as yet enclosed the kernel. But the majority of these were +successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional +rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, +to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place.<a id="footnotetag5" name="footnotetag5"></a><a href="#footnote5"><sup>5</sup></a></p> + +<p>This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do +not mean the Gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth +rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the +reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had +accepted. The Christianity of men like Justin, Athenagoras, +and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than that of Origen. +But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is twofold. +In the first place, those Apologists did not yet find themselves +face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title +to be reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old +Testament and the "Teachings of Christ" (διδαγματα Χριστου). +In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific +presentation of Christianity as the main task and as one which +this religion itself demands. As they really never enquired +what was meant by "Christian," or at least never put the +question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their +scientific presentation of Christianity was the first proper expression +of it that had been given. Justin and his contemporaries +make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith +existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself +requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which existed +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page8" id="page8"></a>[pg 8]</span> +between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of +Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that +tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious +utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as +yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech +of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the +Church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to +most. Christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of +their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements +of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge +apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the +only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz., the assurance +that the theory of the world obtained from other sources +was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity +as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been +caused to it by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the +Apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking +it. The latter were not disowned, but rather laid the foundation +of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests +within which it was to move in the future.<a id="footnotetag6" name="footnotetag6"></a><a href="#footnote6"><sup>6</sup></a></p> + +<p>But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, +namely, the task of showing that Christianity was the perfect +and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that +it was the highest scientific knowledge of God and the world, +was to be rendered more difficult. To these difficulties all that +primitive Christianity has up to the present transmitted to the +Church of succeeding times contributes its share. The conflict +with Gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of solution +to the question, "What is Christian?" and to fix this answer. +But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question +confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection +from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding +on Christians. Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page9" id="page9"></a>[pg 9]</span> +Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith +and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an +entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those +trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the +Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the +situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it.<a id="footnotetag7" name="footnotetag7"></a><a href="#footnote7"><sup>7</sup></a> The +work first began with the scientific treatment of individual +articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view +of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of +satisfying the Church's own needs. The framework in which +these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic +theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world, +which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much +as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenæus, Tertullian +and Hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the +one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the Gnostic +dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal confession +interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed +into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from +the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas +as propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown +to exist in the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and +rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just +mentioned were the first to set up dogmas<a id="footnotetag8" name="footnotetag8"></a><a href="#footnote8"><sup>8</sup></a>—dogmas but no +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page10" id="page10"></a>[pg 10]</span> +system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was +by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar +capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional +and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as +they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than +the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet +Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a +very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still +lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds +required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression +of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical +with the Christianity which even the most uncultivated +could grasp. That this was an illusion is proved by many +considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that Tertullian +and Hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the +doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that +the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the <i>articulus +constitutivus ecclesiæ</i>. The effects of this undertaking can never +be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philosophy +<i>in nuce</i>, though primitive Christian views may have been +subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed +of Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up +<i>of the first dogma in the Church</i>, meant the future conversion +of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. But in yet another +respect Irenæus and Hippolytus denote an immense advance +beyond the Apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both +from the progress of Christian Hellenism and from a deeper +study of the Pauline theology, that is, emanates from the controversy +with Gnosticism. In them a religious and realistic idea +takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the +deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son +of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition +of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was +taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian +one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained +in the Epistle to the Ephesians), and brought into the closest +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page11" id="page11"></a>[pg 11]</span> +connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son +of man (filius dei et filius hominis). What the heathen faintly +hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and +indeed as having already taken place. What a message! This +conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future. +A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the +dogmatic system of the Church.<a id="footnotetag9" name="footnotetag9"></a><a href="#footnote9"><sup>9</sup></a></p> + +<p>But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both +Testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the +current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized +in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either +the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as +a <i>problem</i>. If the Church tradition contained the assurance, +not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, +hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded +as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble +union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy +of religion was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense +number of problems were at the same time raised, especially +when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism +in the entire breadth of its development was united with the +doctrine of the Church. The task, which had been begun by +Philo and carried on by Valentinus and his school, was now undertaken +in the Church. Clement led the way in attempting a +solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much +for him. Origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, +and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He, the +rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wrote +the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic +systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures +of both Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic +theology of a Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page12" id="page12"></a>[pg 12]</span> +while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical +aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite +consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity +finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, +and that every form of Christianity that lacks theology is but +a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. +This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a +different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative +distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, +that the untheological Christianity of the age with which +he compared his own was already permeated by Hellenic +elements and in a very great measure secularised.<a id="footnotetag10" name="footnotetag10"></a><a href="#footnote10"><sup>10</sup></a> But Origen, +as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the conviction +that the true essence of Christianity, or, in other words, +the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; +for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both +Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it +not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church +which identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and +Origen found freedom and independence in what they recognized +to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived +with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an +examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. But was not +that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This question +can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still +less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was +here given to the ideal by representing it <i>as assured beyond +all doubt, already realised</i> in the person of Christ and incompatible +with polytheism. If, as is manifestly the case, they found +joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe +connected with it, if they prepared themselves for an eternal +life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be +perfect only through dependence on God, then, in spite of their +Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel than +Irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority.</p> + +<p>The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page13" id="page13"></a>[pg 13]</span> +was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted +in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some +parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of +Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not +only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in +the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved.<a id="footnotetag11" name="footnotetag11"></a><a href="#footnote11"><sup>11</sup></a> +The circumstances of the several provincial churches in the +first half of the third century were still very diverse. Many +communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into +Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the +clergy—not to speak of the laity—was not high enough to enable +them to appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in +which Origen taught carried on his work, similar ones were +established, and these produced a number of the bishops and +presbyters of the East in the last half of the third century. +They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the +age, and this was all the more a guarantee of victory because +the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. +Wherever the Logos Christology had been adopted the future +of Christian Hellenism was certain. At the beginning of the +fourth century there was no community in Christendom which, +apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical +theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say +nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of +Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine +started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. +Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a +peculiar mixture of Origen's theology with the inflexible Antignostic +<i>regula fidei</i>. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured +to unite the theology of Irenæus and Origen, ecclesiastical +realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic +mysticism. The developments of the following period therefore +no longer appear surprising in any respect.</p> + +<p>As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page14" id="page14"></a>[pg 14]</span> +the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity,<a id="footnotetag12" name="footnotetag12"></a><a href="#footnote12"><sup>12</sup></a> so the +Catholic dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third +century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity conceived +and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philosophy +of religion.<a id="footnotetag13" name="footnotetag13"></a><a href="#footnote13"><sup>13</sup></a> This Christianity conquered the old world, +and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the +Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion with a definite +historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be lamented +in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby +secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture +which was thereby retarded(?). But lamentations become here +ill-founded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have +and value is due to the alliance that Christianity and antiquity +concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over +the other. Our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least +part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have +acquired, is based up to the present moment on the discords +resulting from that union.</p> + +<p>These hints are meant among other things to explain and +justify<a id="footnotetag14" name="footnotetag14"></a><a href="#footnote14"><sup>14</sup></a> the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, +which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian +dogma.<a id="footnotetag15" name="footnotetag15"></a><a href="#footnote15"><sup>15</sup></a> A few more remarks are, however, necessary.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page15" id="page15"></a>[pg 15]</span> + +<p>1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the +Catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close +connection and mutual intercourse, had no real <i>forum publicum</i>, +though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was <i>in foro +publico</i>. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in +the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without +being able to state precisely the ways and means which led +to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore +theoretically construct the development; but the real course of +things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious +Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can +no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the +conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of +the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct +evidence as to what communities had a special share in the +development, although we know that the Roman Church played +a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, +common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. +It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second +century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in +the East, but later also in the West, Synods in which an understanding +was arrived at on all questions of importance to +Christianity, including, <i>e.g.</i>, the extent of the canon.<a id="footnotetag16" name="footnotetag16"></a><a href="#footnote16"><sup>16</sup></a></p> + +<p>2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page16" id="page16"></a>[pg 16]</span> +on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also +obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to +claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they introduced, +and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took +appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is +in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what they +received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. +Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of +literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great +extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these +men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. +Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related +to Irenæus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds +good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up +a series of plain dogmatic formulæ which are not found in Irenæus +and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding +times. Secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and +unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus. The truth +rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the +unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development. +Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception +of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas +in Irenæus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the +Gospel as real redemption. The main problem therefore resolves +itself into the question as to the position of Irenæus in the +history of the Church. To what extent were his expositions new, +to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed +in the Churches, and in which of them? We cannot form to +ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of Christian +writings in the Church after the last quarter of the second century.<a id="footnotetag17" name="footnotetag17"></a><a href="#footnote17"><sup>17</sup></a> +Every important work speedily found its way into +the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diffusion +was not merely from East to West, though this was the general +rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in Cæsarea +a Greek translation of Tertullian's Apology and a collection +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page17" id="page17"></a>[pg 17]</span> +of Cyprian's epistles.<a id="footnotetag18" name="footnotetag18"></a><a href="#footnote18"><sup>18</sup></a> The influence of the Roman Church +extended over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about +the year 260 the Churches in East and West had still in some +degree a common history.</p> + +<p>3. The developments in the history of dogma within the +period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by +no means brought about in the different communities at the +same time and in a completely analogous fashion. This +fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our +authorities are almost completely derived from those leading +Churches that were connected with each other by constant +intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved +by the ratio of development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage +on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the other. Besides, +we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote +provinces and communities the development was slower, +and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer +preserved.<a id="footnotetag19" name="footnotetag19"></a><a href="#footnote19"><sup>19</sup></a></p> + +<p>4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway +over the Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second +third of the third century, the development of the history of +dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and +was carried on by its learned men. Every mystery they set +up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these +did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another +new fetter.</p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote1" name="footnote1"></a><b>Footnote 1:</b><a href="#footnotetag1"> (return) </a><p>Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878, pp. 1-68) has +given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan +in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom +exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in +Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the appearance of Ritschl's monograph on the +genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a +conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank +with the French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-sided +manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements +responsible for all the evil in the Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote2" name="footnote2"></a><b>Footnote 2:</b><a href="#footnotetag2"> (return) </a><p>Sohm (p. 160) declares: "The foundation of Catholicism is the divine Church +law to which it lays claim." In many other passages he even seems to express +the opinion that the Church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, +is the hereditary enemy of the true Church and at the same time denotes the +essence of Catholicism. See, <i>e.g.</i>, p. 2: "The whole essence of Catholicism +consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the Church." Page 700: +"The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church." +This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great truth, if +expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: "The assertion that there is +a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or, in other words, from the Apostles), +which is necessary to the spiritual character of the Church and which in fact is a +token of this very attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is +the mark of a pseudo-Catholicism." But the thesis contains too narrow a view of +the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the essence of the +Catholic Church, though a very important element, which Sohm, as a jurist, was +peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole essence of Catholicism, however, +consists in the deification of tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical +institutions of the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, +a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the Gospel +and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly "Catholic" feature. Now, +as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot +really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is self-evident that such portions become +continued: legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to +these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corresponding +slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and +well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general conviction +that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and +infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are +apostolic. +Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, +this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must +certainly be a strong detestation of "the divine Church law." Indeed, the inclination +to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil +your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be +imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train +men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the +formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been +wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a +legal code. Sohm's distinction, that in the oldest period there was no "law," but +only a "regulation," is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; +for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a +different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are +represented, and which has therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so? +And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the +διαταξεις of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm's proposition: +"The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church," does +not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow +and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The +Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only +course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found +a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! +But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above +the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, +even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible +with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with +the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote3" name="footnote3"></a><b>Footnote 3:</b><a href="#footnotetag3"> (return) </a><p>In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the +attempt to create a rigid œcumenical community, held together solely by religion. +The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote4" name="footnote4"></a><b>Footnote 4:</b><a href="#footnotetag4"> (return) </a><p>The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Græco-Roman +humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of Catholicism and +its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and +immoral mythology were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, +and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. +Philosophy also aimed at that, but it was not able to establish a community of +men on these foundations.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote5" name="footnote5"></a><b>Footnote 5:</b><a href="#footnotetag5"> (return) </a><p>Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction +between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the Fathers, who followed the +theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke, Vol. LXII. p. 49, quoting Proles: +"When the word of God comes to the Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were +filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote6" name="footnote6"></a><b>Footnote 6:</b><a href="#footnotetag6"> (return) </a><p>They were not the first to determine this circle of interests. So far as we +can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called +Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with +the theories of the Apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and +divested of Old Testament language.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote7" name="footnote7"></a><b>Footnote 7:</b><a href="#footnotetag7"> (return) </a><p> +It was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive +collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of Christianity that +reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church +began in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On +the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating +introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as +it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive Christianity, it +preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific +or religious considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity +is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of Catholicism. +On the supposition—which is indeed an academic consideration—that this fixing +had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the Gnosticism which +occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had +continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original Christianity +today. How much we would have known may be seen from the Shepherd of Hermas.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote8" name="footnote8"></a><b>Footnote 8:</b><a href="#footnotetag8"> (return) </a><p> +So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual +theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved, +originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to +amalgamate historical material and natural theology.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote9" name="footnote9"></a><b>Footnote 9:</b><a href="#footnotetag9"> (return) </a><p>It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is explained by the +fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned Christian, +to whom the Gospel was <i>conscientia religionis, disciplina vitæ</i> and <i>spes +fidei</i>, and +who found no sort of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the +ideas "command," "performance," "error," "forgiveness." In Irenæus also, +moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the +Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote10" name="footnote10"></a><b>Footnote 10:</b><a href="#footnotetag10"> (return) </a><p>On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, "Über die Anfänge +der patristischen Litteratur" in d. Hist. Ztschr, N. F., Vol, XII. p. 417 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote11" name="footnote11"></a><b>Footnote 11:</b><a href="#footnotetag11"> (return) </a><p>Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen +(see especially his work against Celsus), but also and above all from his history. +The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive +on the matter.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote12" name="footnote12"></a><b>Footnote 12:</b><a href="#footnotetag12"> (return) </a><p>The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the development of church +doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive +religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic +moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic +philosophy, and complete syncretism.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote13" name="footnote13"></a><b>Footnote 13:</b><a href="#footnotetag13"> (return) </a><p>"Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur" (Tertull., de bapt. 2.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote14" name="footnote14"></a><b>Footnote 14:</b><a href="#footnotetag14"> (return) </a><p>The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would +have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because +the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development +and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me +to be very great. We must then of course understand the two developments as +proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel before the +latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the former +passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the Church, +than what was reached in the latter. Decades elapsed, for instance, before the +apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the Church, as +is shown by the long continued conflict against Monarchianism.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote15" name="footnote15"></a><b>Footnote 15:</b><a href="#footnotetag15"> (return) </a><p>The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within +the framework of the history of dogma, for the political situation of the Christian +communities in the Roman Empire had quite as important an influence on the +development of the Catholic Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as +that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the +history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development +within definite limits.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote16" name="footnote16"></a><b>Footnote 16:</b><a href="#footnotetag16"> (return) </a><p>See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: "Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ +sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio +ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;" de ieiun. 13: +"Aguntur præsterea per Græcias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, +per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius +nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur." We must also take into account +here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may specially remind the +reader of the correspondence between Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., +H. E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. +Cf. generally Zahn, Weltverkehr und Kirche währeud der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, +1877.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote17" name="footnote17"></a><b>Footnote 17:</b><a href="#footnotetag17"> (return) </a><p> +See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek Apologists of the second +century in the early Church in the Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der alt christl. +Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote18" name="footnote18"></a><b>Footnote 18:</b><a href="#footnotetag18"> (return) </a><p>See Euseb., H. E. II. 2; VI. 43.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote19" name="footnote19"></a><b>Footnote 19:</b><a href="#footnotetag19"> (return) </a><p>See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally. +The Acta Archelai and the Homilies of Aphraates should also be specially +examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and finally the remains of the Latin-Christian +literature of the third century—apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and +Novatian—as found partly under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. +Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has +been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the Church.</p></blockquote> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page18" id="page18"></a>[pg 18]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="PART_I" id="PART_I"></a>I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF +CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH</h2> + +<h2><a name="CHAP_II" id="CHAP_II"></a>CHAPTER II</h2> + +<h3>THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR +ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC +CHURCH.<a id="footnotetag20" name="footnotetag20"></a><a href="#footnote20"><sup>20</sup></a></h3> + + +<p>We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated +passages from Tertullian's "de præscriptione hæreticorum." In +chap. 21 we find: "It is plain that all teaching that agrees +with those apostolic Churches which are the wombs and origins +of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that +such doctrine contains that which the Church received from the +Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God." In +chap. 36 we read: "Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has +learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise +had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page19" id="page19"></a>[pg 19]</span> +Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of +God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection +of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with +the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From these it +draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with +water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, +and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who rejects +this institution." In chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed +to the heretics: "Let them unfold a series of their bishops +proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way +that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor +some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, +who, however, associated with the Apostles."<a id="footnotetag21" name="footnotetag21"></a><a href="#footnote21"><sup>21</sup></a> From the consideration +of these three passages it directly follows that three +standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, +the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic +authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that is, +by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It +will be seen that the Church always adopted these three standards +together, that is simultaneously.<a id="footnotetag22" name="footnotetag22"></a><a href="#footnote22"><sup>22</sup></a> As a matter of fact they +originated in Rome and gradually made their way in the other +Churches. That Asia Minor had a share in this is probable, +though the question is involved in obscurity. The three Catholic +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page20" id="page20"></a>[pg 20]</span> +standards had their preparatory stages, (1) in short kerygmatic +creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless +apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches; +(3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, +or the "elders" and leaders of the individual communities.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_II_A" id="SEC_II_A"></a>A. <i>The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession +into the Apostolic Rule of Faith.</i></h3> + +<p>It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the +complete identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian +communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve +Apostles can already be shown in the earliest Gentile-Christian +literature. In the widest sense the expression, κανων τησ +παραδοσεως (canon of tradition), originally included all that was +traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles +and was of value for the faith and life of the Church, together +with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, +as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. +In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and +words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith +they were the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far +as this faith was to determine the essence of everything Christian, +it might be termed κανων της πιστεως, κανων της αληθειας (canon of +the faith, canon of the truth).<a id="footnotetag23" name="footnotetag23"></a><a href="#footnote23"><sup>23</sup></a> But the very fact that the +extent of what was regarded as tradition of the Apostles was +quite undetermined ensured the possibility of the highest degree +of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page21" id="page21"></a>[pg 21]</span> +Christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without +any regard to tradition.</p> + +<p>We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism +short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out +of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The +shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as +belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.<a id="footnotetag24" name="footnotetag24"></a><a href="#footnote24"><sup>24</sup></a> It appears to have been +universally current in Christendom about the year 150. In the +solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism, +in the great prayer of the Lord's Supper, as well as in the +exorcism of demons,<a id="footnotetag25" name="footnotetag25"></a><a href="#footnote25"><sup>25</sup></a> fixed formulæ were used. They embraced +also such articles as contained the most important facts in the +history of Jesus.<a id="footnotetag26" name="footnotetag26"></a><a href="#footnote26"><sup>26</sup></a> We know definitely that not later than about +the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman +Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism +had to profess;<a id="footnotetag27" name="footnotetag27"></a><a href="#footnote27"><sup>27</sup></a> and something similar must also have existed +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page22" id="page22"></a>[pg 22]</span> +in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year +150, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that +formulæ of similar plan and extent were also found in other +provincial Churches about this time.<a id="footnotetag28" name="footnotetag28"></a><a href="#footnote28"><sup>28</sup></a> Still it is neither probable +that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor +that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid +way as the Roman Church had done. The proclamation of the +history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the κερυγμα +της αληθειας, also accompanied the short baptismal formula +without being expressed in set terms.<a id="footnotetag29" name="footnotetag29"></a><a href="#footnote29"><sup>29</sup></a></p> + +<p>Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian +life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated +creed. In the recently discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" +(Διδαχη των αποστολων) we have no doubt a notable attempt +to fix the rules of Christian life as traced back to Jesus through +the medium of the Apostles, and to elevate them into the +foundation of the confederation of Christian Churches; but +this undertaking, which could not but have led the development +of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed. That the +formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct, but +the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoidable +necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest +and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was +practically assured.<a id="footnotetag30" name="footnotetag30"></a><a href="#footnote30"><sup>30</sup></a> Objection was not taken to the principles +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page23" id="page23"></a>[pg 23]</span> +of morality—at least this was not a primary consideration—for +there were many Greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, +but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition +and to the Church's worship of a God, who, as creator of the +world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the +Greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to be interwoven +with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the +Jews also, seemed clearly distinct from the Supreme Being. This +gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art +of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as +attempted by Marcion. With the freedom that still prevailed +Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass +of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from +its original conditions. "It was admitted on all sides that Christianity +had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if +any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was +possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which +the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that +there could be but little cohesion between the members of the +Christian communities. The problem arose and pressed for an +answer: What should be the basis of Christian union? But the +problem was for a time insoluble. For there was no standard +and no court of appeal." From the very beginning, when the +differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity, +appeal was probably made to the Apostles' doctrine, the words +of the Lord, tradition, "sound doctrine", definite facts, such as +the reality of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality +of his death and resurrection.<a id="footnotetag31" name="footnotetag31"></a><a href="#footnote31"><sup>31</sup></a> In instruction, in exhortations, +and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page24" id="page24"></a>[pg 24]</span> +this precept was inculcated from the beginning: απολιπωμεν +τας κενας και ματαιας φροντιδας, και ελθωμεν επι τον ευκλεη και σεμνον +της παραδοσεως 'ημων κανονα ("Let us leave off vain and foolish +thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of +our tradition"). But the very question was: What is sound doctrine? +What is the content of tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a +reality? etc. There is no doubt that Justin, in opposition to those +whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians, insisted on the absolute +necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and +made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. To all appearance +it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion +of heterodoxy (see his συνταγμα κατα πασων των γεγενημενων +'αιρεσεων); but, judging from those writings of his that have +been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already +successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox +Christianity.<a id="footnotetag32" name="footnotetag32"></a><a href="#footnote32"><sup>32</sup></a></p> + +<p>The permanence of the communities, however, depended on +the discovery of such a standard. They were no longer held +together by the <i>conscientia religionis</i>, the <i>unitas disciplinæ</i>, and +the <i>fœdus spei</i>. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page25" id="page25"></a>[pg 25]</span> +They rather show us merely the excess of a continuous transformation +which no community could escape. The gnosis +which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in +proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost +its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority +of Christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had +the "Spirit" and found in that an indestructible guarantee of +their Christian position, (2) because they observed all the +commandments of Jesus (εντολαι Ιησου). But when these +guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most +diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the Church +were preached in the name of Christianity, the fixing of tradition +necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in every other +case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some +extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who +took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting +up of dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new +formations. But the example set by the Gnostics was the very +thing that rendered the problem difficult. Where was a beginning +to be made? "There is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds +of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some +one thinker throws into suitable form."<a id="footnotetag33" name="footnotetag33"></a><a href="#footnote33"><sup>33</sup></a> There could be no +doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was "apostolic," +for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based on a divine +revelation which had been transmitted through the medium +of the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly +was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of +affirming the fixed forms employed by the Churches in their +solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. It must +have come about by a natural process. But the confession of +the Father, Son, and Spirit and the <i>kerygma</i> of Jesus Christ +had the most prominent place among these forms. The special +emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and +Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of +the "common sense" of all those who clung to the belief that +the Father of Jesus Christ was the creator of the world, and +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page26" id="page26"></a>[pg 26]</span> +that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was +not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the +period between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed +creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense—and +this cannot be proved,—the most dangerous of all Gnostic +schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed, +since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text +in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic +creed <i>definitely interpreted</i>; for it was only by the aid of +a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to +repel the Gnostic speculations and the Marcionite conception of +Christianity.</p> + +<p>In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings +of which are known to us through Irenæus and Tertullian, took, +with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed +to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpretation +required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed +as its self-evident content; the confession, thus explained, was +designated as the "Catholic faith" ("fides catholica"), that is +the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made +the test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the +general confederation of Christendom. Irenæus was not the +author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the coöperation +or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a +matter that is still obscure,<a id="footnotetag34" name="footnotetag34"></a><a href="#footnote34"><sup>34</sup></a> and will probably never be determined +with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished +practically was theoretically established by Irenæus<a id="footnotetag35" name="footnotetag35"></a><a href="#footnote35"><sup>35</sup></a> and Tertullian. +The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, definitely +interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to +be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page27" id="page27"></a>[pg 27]</span> +to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory +that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches +founded by the Apostles, and that these communities had +always preserved the apostolic teaching unchanged (see under C).</p> + +<p>Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity +from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions +and on a confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that +any creed emanated from the Apostles, nor that the Churches +they founded always preserved their teaching in its original +form; the creed itself, moreover, is confused with its interpretation. +Finally, the existence of a <i>fides catholica</i>, in the strict +sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential +agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities.<a id="footnotetag36" name="footnotetag36"></a><a href="#footnote36"><sup>36</sup></a> +But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenæus was the +only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive +Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A <i>fides apostolica</i> +had to be set up and declared identical with the already +existing <i>fides catholica</i>. It had to be made the standard for +judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined +whether they were admissible or not.</p> + +<p>The persuasive power with which Irenæus set up the principle of +the apostolic "rule of truth," or of "tradition" or simply of "faith," +was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the +facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him +and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation.<a id="footnotetag37" name="footnotetag37"></a><a href="#footnote37"><sup>37</sup></a> The rule +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page28" id="page28"></a>[pg 28]</span> +of truth (also 'η 'υπο της εκκλησιας κηρυσσομενη αληθεια "the truth +proclaimed by the Church;" and το της αληθειας σωματιον, "the +body of the truth") is the old baptismal confession well known +to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4; +'ουτω δε και 'ο τον κανονα της αληθειας ακλινη εν 'εαυτω κατεχων +'ον δια του βαπτισματος ειληφε, "in like manner he also who +retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he +received through baptism"); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm +and immovable.<a id="footnotetag38" name="footnotetag38"></a><a href="#footnote38"><sup>38</sup></a></p> + +<p>By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which +in the case of Irenæus (I. 10. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement +of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most important +Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses +established as apostolic. In his apostolic rule of truth Irenæus +himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines:<a id="footnotetag39" name="footnotetag39"></a><a href="#footnote39"><sup>39</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page29" id="page29"></a>[pg 29]</span> +the unity of God, the identity of the supreme God with the +Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the +Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the +God who created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; +the incarnation of the Son of God; the prediction of the +entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old +Testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception +(ενσαρκος αναληψις) of Christ into heaven; the visible return +of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (αναστασις πασης σαρκος, +πασης ανθροπωτητος), the universal judgment. These dogmas, +the antitheses of the Gnostic regulæ,<a id="footnotetag40" name="footnotetag40"></a><a href="#footnote40"><sup>40</sup></a> were consequently, as +apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all +discussion.</p> + +<p>Tertullian followed Irenæus in every particular. He also +interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, +thus explained, as the <i>regula fidei</i>,<a id="footnotetag41" name="footnotetag41"></a><a href="#footnote41"><sup>41</sup></a> and transferred to the latter +the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or +origin from Christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness.<a id="footnotetag42" name="footnotetag42"></a><a href="#footnote42"><sup>42</sup></a> +Like Irenæus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured +to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is, +from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demonstration +on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the +faith of those Churches founded by the Apostles, that in these +communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because +in them, as could be proved, the Apostles had always had +successors, and that the other Churches were in communion with +them (see under C). In a more definite way than Irenæus, Tertullian +conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,<a id="footnotetag43" name="footnotetag43"></a><a href="#footnote43"><sup>43</sup></a> as the law given +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page30" id="page30"></a>[pg 30]</span> +to faith,<a id="footnotetag44" name="footnotetag44"></a><a href="#footnote44"><sup>44</sup></a> also as a "regula doctrinæ" or "doctrina regulæ" +(here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even +simply as "doctrina" or "institutio."<a id="footnotetag45" name="footnotetag45"></a><a href="#footnote45"><sup>45</sup></a> As to the content of +the <i>regula</i>, it was set forth by Tertullian in three passages.<a id="footnotetag46" name="footnotetag46"></a><a href="#footnote46"><sup>46</sup></a> +It is essentially the same as in Irenæus. But Tertullian +already gives prominence within the <i>regula</i> to the creation of +the universe out of nothing,<a id="footnotetag47" name="footnotetag47"></a><a href="#footnote47"><sup>47</sup></a> the creative instrumentality of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page31" id="page31"></a>[pg 31]</span> +Logos,<a id="footnotetag48" name="footnotetag48"></a><a href="#footnote48"><sup>48</sup></a> his origin before all creatures,<a id="footnotetag49" name="footnotetag49"></a><a href="#footnote49"><sup>49</sup></a> a definite theory of +the Incarnation,<a id="footnotetag50" name="footnotetag50"></a><a href="#footnote50"><sup>50</sup></a> the preaching by Christ of a <i>nova lex</i> and +a <i>nova promissio regni cœlorum</i>,<a id="footnotetag51" name="footnotetag51"></a><a href="#footnote51"><sup>51</sup></a> and finally also the Trinitarian +economy of God.<a id="footnotetag52" name="footnotetag52"></a><a href="#footnote52"><sup>52</sup></a> Materially, therefore, the advance beyond +Irenæus is already very significant. Tertullian's <i>regula</i> is in +point of fact a <i>doctrina</i>. In attempting to bind the communities +to this he represents them as schools.<a id="footnotetag53" name="footnotetag53"></a><a href="#footnote53"><sup>53</sup></a> The apostolic "lex et +doctrina" is to be regarded as inviolable by every Christian. +Assent to it decides the Christian character of the individual. +Thus the Christian <i>disposition and life</i> come to be a matter +which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. +In this way the essence of religion was split up—the most fatal +turning-point in the history of Christianity.</p> + +<p>But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning +of the third century the actual bond of union between all the +Churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that +is, definitely interpreted. This much was gained, as is clear from +the treatise <i>de præscriptione</i> and from other evidence, that +in the communities with which Tertullian was acquainted, +mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to +depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with +the Roman baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a +formula was regarded as a Christian brother, and was entitled +to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality.<a id="footnotetag54" name="footnotetag54"></a><a href="#footnote54"><sup>54</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page32" id="page32"></a>[pg 32]</span> +In so far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal formula +which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this +practice betokened an advance. The scattered communities now +possessed a "lex" to bind them together, quite as certainly as +the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real +and practical character<a id="footnotetag55" name="footnotetag55"></a><a href="#footnote55"><sup>55</sup></a> in the shape of certain briefly formulated +doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic <i>lex</i> of +Christians the Catholic Church became a reality, and was at +the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But +more than this was gained, in so far as the Antignostic interpretation +of the formula, and consequently a "doctrine," was +indeed in some measure involved in the <i>lex</i>. The extent to +which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual +community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded +by the wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every +formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it +is set up as a critical canon. What we observe in Irenæus +and Tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater +or less degree; that is to say, the authority of the confessional +formula must have been extended to statements not found in +the formula itself.</p> + +<p>We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexandria +that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,<a id="footnotetag56" name="footnotetag56"></a><a href="#footnote56"><sup>56</sup></a> +ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was +not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page33" id="page33"></a>[pg 33]</span> +same time. From this it is clearly manifest that at this period +the Alexandrian Church neither possessed a baptismal confession +similar to that of Rome,<a id="footnotetag57" name="footnotetag57"></a><a href="#footnote57"><sup>57</sup></a> nor understood by "regula fidei" +and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs fixed in +some fashion and derived from the apostles.<a id="footnotetag58" name="footnotetag58"></a><a href="#footnote58"><sup>58</sup></a> Clement of +Alexandria in his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page34" id="page34"></a>[pg 34]</span> +Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord,<a id="footnotetag59" name="footnotetag59"></a><a href="#footnote59"><sup>59</sup></a> and to the standard +tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, +though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole +of Christianity in its present condition as needing to be reconstructed +by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of +tradition.<a id="footnotetag60" name="footnotetag60"></a><a href="#footnote60"><sup>60</sup></a> In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenæus +and Tertullian, he to some extent represents an earlier standpoint; +he stands midway between them and Justin. From this +author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs +sacred Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes +the true Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the +latter and has lost that naive view of tradition, that is, the +complete content of Christianity, which Irenæus and Tertullian +still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the +ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles; but it is +characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as +Irenæus and Tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that +the Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But +as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of +fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the importance +of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric +alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenæus and +Tertullian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the +Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them +by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which +must not oppose the κανων της εκκλησιας, that is, the Christian +common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. +But this attitude of Clement would be simply inconceivable +if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employed +the fixed standard applied in those of Rome, Carthage +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page35" id="page35"></a>[pg 35]</span> +and Lyons.<a id="footnotetag61" name="footnotetag61"></a><a href="#footnote61"><sup>61</sup></a> Such a standard did not exist; but Clement +made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even +between faith and discipline, because as a theologian he was +not able to identify himself with any single article of it without +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page36" id="page36"></a>[pg 36]</span> +hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the +ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine.</p> + +<p>Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics +chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page37" id="page37"></a>[pg 37]</span> +an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenæus and +Tertullian than to that of Clement. In the preface to his great work, +"De principiis," he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed +apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed +to the apostolic teaching.<a id="footnotetag62" name="footnotetag62"></a><a href="#footnote62"><sup>62</sup></a> It may be assumed that in the +time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian Christians +had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome +and other communities.<a id="footnotetag63" name="footnotetag63"></a><a href="#footnote63"><sup>63</sup></a> The Syrian Churches, or at least a +part of them, followed still later.<a id="footnotetag64" name="footnotetag64"></a><a href="#footnote64"><sup>64</sup></a> There can be no doubt that, +from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the +same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main +features, prevailed in the great confederation of Churches extending +from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond +the Alps.<a id="footnotetag65" name="footnotetag65"></a><a href="#footnote65"><sup>65</sup></a> It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore +also a passport, mark of recognition, etc., for the orthodox Christians. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page38" id="page38"></a>[pg 38]</span> +The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain +ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But a definite +theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. +By the end of the third century there can no longer have been +any considerable number of outlying communities where the +doctrines of the pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this +pre-existent One with the divine Logos were not recognised as +the orthodox belief.<a id="footnotetag66" name="footnotetag66"></a><a href="#footnote66"><sup>66</sup></a> They may have first become an "apostolic +confession of faith" through the Nicene Creed. But even +this creed was not adopted all at once.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_II_B" id="SEC_II_B"></a>B. <i>The designation of selected writings read in the churches as +New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection +of apostolic writings</i>.<a id="footnotetag67" name="footnotetag67"></a><a href="#footnote67"><sup>67</sup></a></h3> + +<p>Every word and every writing which testified of the κυριος +(Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from +his spirit: 'Οθεν 'η κυριοτης λαλειται εκει Κυριος εστιν. (Didache IV. 1; +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page39" id="page39"></a>[pg 39]</span> +see also 1 Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy.<a id="footnotetag68" name="footnotetag68"></a><a href="#footnote68"><sup>68</sup></a> In this +sense the New Testament is a "residuary product," just as the +idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. +But on the other hand, the New Testament is a new creation +of the Church,<a id="footnotetag69" name="footnotetag69"></a><a href="#footnote69"><sup>69</sup></a> inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of +the Old—which through it has become a complicated book for +Christendom,—as a Catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures +containing and attesting the truth.</p> + +<p>Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new +canon of Scripture,<a id="footnotetag70" name="footnotetag70"></a><a href="#footnote70"><sup>70</sup></a> which seems to have enjoyed the same +authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Testament +in orthodox Christendom. In the Gnostic schools, which +likewise rejected the Old Testament altogether or in part, Evangelic +and Pauline writings were, by the middle of the second century, +treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm their theological +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page40" id="page40"></a>[pg 40]</span> +speculations.<a id="footnotetag71" name="footnotetag71"></a><a href="#footnote71"><sup>71</sup></a> On the other hand, about the year 150 the main body +of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possessing +equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apocalypses, +no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts, +were regarded as inspired and authoritative.<a id="footnotetag72" name="footnotetag72"></a><a href="#footnote72"><sup>72</sup></a> Here we leave +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page41" id="page41"></a>[pg 41]</span> +out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the +Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the +ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the +Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets.<a id="footnotetag73" name="footnotetag73"></a><a href="#footnote73"><sup>73</sup></a> The +memoirs of the Apostles (απομνημονευματα τον αποστολων = +τα ευαγγελια) owed their significance solely to the fact that +they recorded the words and history of the Lord and bore +witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. There +is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of +standard authority.<a id="footnotetag74" name="footnotetag74"></a><a href="#footnote74"><sup>74</sup></a> But we learn further from Justin that the +Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public +worship (Apol. I. 67) and that our first three Gospels were already +in use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other +Christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly +read in Christian meetings.<a id="footnotetag75" name="footnotetag75"></a><a href="#footnote75"><sup>75</sup></a> Such writings naturally possessed +a high degree of authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church +are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates +with the Holy Spirit,<a id="footnotetag76" name="footnotetag76"></a><a href="#footnote76"><sup>76</sup></a> which in this, as well as every other +respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here, however, two interests were +predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual +edification and that of attesting and certifying the Christian +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page42" id="page42"></a>[pg 42]</span> +<i>Kerygma</i> ('η ασφαλεια των λογων). <i>The ecclesiastical canon was +the result of the latter interest</i>, not indeed in consequence of +a process of collection, for individual communities had already +made a far larger compilation,<a id="footnotetag77" name="footnotetag77"></a><a href="#footnote77"><sup>77</sup></a> but, in the first instance, through +selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition.</p> + +<p>We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the +canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the +second century, for the fact—easily demonstrable—that the +texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is +in itself a proof of this.<a id="footnotetag78" name="footnotetag78"></a><a href="#footnote78"><sup>78</sup></a> Our first three Gospels contain passages +and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before +about the year 150. Moreover, Tatian's attempt to create a new +Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet +fixed.<a id="footnotetag79" name="footnotetag79"></a><a href="#footnote79"><sup>79</sup></a> We may remark that he was the first in whom we +find the Gospel of John<a id="footnotetag80" name="footnotetag80"></a><a href="#footnote80"><sup>80</sup></a> alongside of the Synoptists, and these +four the only ones recognised. From the assault of the "Alogi" +on the Johannine Gospel we learn that about 160 the whole of +our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in +Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyptians, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page43" id="page43"></a>[pg 43]</span> +the use of which was not confined to circles outside the +Church.<a id="footnotetag81" name="footnotetag81"></a><a href="#footnote81"><sup>81</sup></a></p> + +<p>From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood +midway between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church +as well as the Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using +the Gospels as canonical writings side by side with the Old +Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the +Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.<a id="footnotetag82" name="footnotetag82"></a><a href="#footnote82"><sup>82</sup></a> But Tatian, +the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a +more complete canon, an important fact about which was its +inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still supplies +us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament +canon in orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called +"Montanism" and its extreme antithesis, the "Alogi," in Asia Minor +soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was +still no New Testament canon there; for, if such an authoritative +compilation had existed, these movements could not have +arisen. If we gather together all the indications and evidence +bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the +speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel canon +comprising the four Gospels;<a id="footnotetag83" name="footnotetag83"></a><a href="#footnote83"><sup>83</sup></a> but we are prepared neither for +this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testament, +nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet +are only found in Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges +quite suddenly in an allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved +by Eusebius,<a id="footnotetag84" name="footnotetag84"></a><a href="#footnote84"><sup>84</sup></a> the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; +in the works of Irenæus and Tertullian; and in the so-called +Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page44" id="page44"></a>[pg 44]</span> +and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something +to all intents and purposes finished and complete.<a id="footnotetag85" name="footnotetag85"></a><a href="#footnote85"><sup>85</sup></a> Moreover, +it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first +able to show the existence of the apostolic <i>regula fidei</i>. We +hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because +we learn nothing at all of such persons.<a id="footnotetag86" name="footnotetag86"></a><a href="#footnote86"><sup>86</sup></a> And yet the +collection is regarded by Irenæus and Tertullian as completed. +A refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that +book is already made a severe reproach against them. Their +Bibles are tested by the Church compilation as the older one, +and the latter itself is already used exactly like the Old Testament. +The assumption of the inspiration of the books; the +harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute +sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every +event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of +passages; the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without +importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the +immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.<a id="footnotetag87" name="footnotetag87"></a><a href="#footnote87"><sup>87</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page45" id="page45"></a>[pg 45]</span> + +<p>The probable conditions which brought about the formation +of the New Testament canon in the Church, for in this case +we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which +led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly indicated +here.<a id="footnotetag88" name="footnotetag88"></a><a href="#footnote88"><sup>88</sup></a></p> + +<p>The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writings +by a process of selection<a id="footnotetag89" name="footnotetag89"></a><a href="#footnote89"><sup>89</sup></a> was, so to speak, a kind of +involuntary undertaking of the Church in her conflict with +Marcion and the Gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page46" id="page46"></a>[pg 46]</span> +warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about +the Holy Scriptures,<a id="footnotetag90" name="footnotetag90"></a><a href="#footnote90"><sup>90</sup></a> although the New Testament was already +in existence. That conflict necessitated the formation of a new +Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the strength of +some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old Testament, +could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes +and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised +that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics +appealed to such. She was compelled to claim exclusive possession +of <i>everything</i> that had a right to the name "apostolic," +to deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the +highest honour. Hitherto she had "contented" herself with +proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and, passing +over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the beginning +of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who energetically +pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and +that all Christianity was really to be <i>tested</i> by the apostolic +preaching, that the assumed identity of Christian common sense +with apostolic Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) +that the Apostles contradicted themselves. This opposition made +it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. +But, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested +identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and subject +to question on every particular point. The "unconscious +logic," that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe +an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic +and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was +obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon +of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page47" id="page47"></a>[pg 47]</span> +from the very first. But what writings were apostolic? From +the middle of the second century great numbers of writings +named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there +were often different recensions of one and the same writing.<a id="footnotetag91" name="footnotetag91"></a><a href="#footnote91"><sup>91</sup></a> +Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to +the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into +the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was +necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) +what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The +selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches +of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history +up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. In making +this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were +used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition +of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. +The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious +all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained anything +contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the +rule of faith—hence admission was refused to all books in which +the God of the Old Testament, his creation, etc., appeared to +be depreciated,—and to exclude all recensions of apostolic +writings that seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the +monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only those writings +which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings to +which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,<a id="footnotetag92" name="footnotetag92"></a><a href="#footnote92"><sup>92</sup></a> +and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page48" id="page48"></a>[pg 48]</span> +creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward +fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but +Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost +none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could immediately +confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical <i>Kerygma</i>. <i>This +perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the +Apostles</i><a id="footnotetag93" name="footnotetag93"></a><a href="#footnote93"><sup>93</sup></a> <i>and in some cases also the Epistles of Peter and John</i>, +though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As +a collection this group is the most interesting in the new compilation. +It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the Gospels +with the Apostle (Paul), and, by subordinating his Epistles to +the "Acta omnium apostolorum," makes them witnesses to the +particular tradition that was required and divests them of every +thing suspicious and insufficient.<a id="footnotetag94" name="footnotetag94"></a><a href="#footnote94"><sup>94</sup></a> The Church, however, found +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page49" id="page49"></a>[pg 49]</span> +the selection facilitated by the fact that the content of the +early Christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to +the Christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious +additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, +but also and above all by their profane lucidity. Thus arose +a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have +been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page50" id="page50"></a>[pg 50]</span> +more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite +reading in the communities.<a id="footnotetag95" name="footnotetag95"></a><a href="#footnote95"><sup>95</sup></a> The new collection was already +exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being +prohibited either for purposes of general edification or for +theological ends.<a id="footnotetag96" name="footnotetag96"></a><a href="#footnote96"><sup>96</sup></a> But the causes and motives which led to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page51" id="page51"></a>[pg 51]</span> +its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a footing +of complete equality with the Old Testament, may be +gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode +of using the new Bible and partly from the results attending +its compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utterances, +including the written records of these, had always possessed +standard authority in the Church; there were therefore +parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was undoubted +from the first.<a id="footnotetag97" name="footnotetag97"></a><a href="#footnote97"><sup>97</sup></a> Secondly, what was called "Preaching +of the Apostles," "Teaching of the Apostles," etc., was likewise +regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious +as well as authoritative. There had, however, been absolutely +no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians supposed +they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it +freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this +teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, +she was forced to have recourse to <i>writings</i>, whether she would +or not. The attributes formerly applied to the testimony of +the Apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed +to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records +they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the lead in +forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of +the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed +by forming the apostolic writings into a canon, and placing +them on an equality with the Old Testament, as well as by +subordinating troublesome writings to the Acts of the Apostles. +Considered by themselves these writings, especially the Pauline +Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We can see even +yet from Irenæus and Tertullian that the duty of accommodating +herself to these Epistles was <i>forced</i> upon the Church by Marcion +and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method +of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly +have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.<a id="footnotetag98" name="footnotetag98"></a><a href="#footnote98"><sup>98</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page52" id="page52"></a>[pg 52]</span> +This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must +not be traced to the Church's effort to create for herself a +powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the +compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection +vanished as soon as it was viewed as a <i>sacred</i> collection. For +now the principle: "as the teaching of the Apostles was one, +so also is the tradition" (μια 'η παντων γεγονε των αποστολων +'ωσπερ διδασκαλια 'ουτως δε και 'η παραδοσις) was to be applied +to all contradictory and objectionable details.<a id="footnotetag99" name="footnotetag99"></a><a href="#footnote99"><sup>99</sup></a> It was now +imperative to explain one writing by another; the Pauline Epistles, +for example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral +Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.<a id="footnotetag100" name="footnotetag100"></a><a href="#footnote100"><sup>100</sup></a> Now was required what +Tertullian calls the "mixture" of the Old and New Testaments,<a id="footnotetag101" name="footnotetag101"></a><a href="#footnote101"><sup>101</sup></a> +in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge +got from the old Bible was regarded as the first law for the +interpretation of the new. The formation of the new collection +into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable +necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These +were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they +were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, +the early Christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the +course of the second century; not only did Apostles, prophets, +and teachers die out, but the religious mood of the majority +of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took the place +of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who +felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit.<a id="footnotetag102" name="footnotetag102"></a><a href="#footnote102"><sup>102</sup></a> Such +a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised +by the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous +character which it ought to have, but has to prove its +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page53" id="page53"></a>[pg 53]</span> +legitimacy in an indirect and "objective" way. The breach +with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things +is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves +their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past +on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of +their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of +the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, +to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this +point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold fast their +religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. Not +only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear +disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justification +in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development +of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the +history of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the +opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and +was exhausted in the Apostles, that is, in the records left by +them. We cannot prove with certainty that the canon was +formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was +very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed to be +prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The influence +which the canon exercised in this respect is the most +decisive and important. That which Tertullian, as a Montanist, +asserts of one of his opponents: "Prophetiam expulit, paracletum +fugavit" ("he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Paraclete"), +can be far more truly said of the New Testament which +the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testament, +though not all at once, put an end to a situation where +it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the +Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It likewise +prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such +men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions +to read the future. As the creation of the canon, though +not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production +of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of Christian prophecy +to public credence. Through the canon it came to be acknowledged +that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of a mediate +and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page54" id="page54"></a>[pg 54]</span> +The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completely and +without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revelation, +and by their word alone, which, as emanating from the +Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is +Christian must be tested.<a id="footnotetag103" name="footnotetag103"></a><a href="#footnote103"><sup>103</sup></a></p> + +<p>The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative conceptions +(Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were +more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scriptures; +and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state +of things, for what was known of the Apostles? Accordingly, +<i>as authors of these writings</i>, they and the Holy Spirit became +correlative conceptions. This led to the assumption that the +apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only +intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.<a id="footnotetag104" name="footnotetag104"></a><a href="#footnote104"><sup>104</sup></a> By +this assumption the Apostles, viewed as <i>prophets</i>, received a +significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.<a id="footnotetag105" name="footnotetag105"></a><a href="#footnote105"><sup>105</sup></a> But, +though Irenæus and Tertullian placed both parties on a level, +they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole +authority of the New Testament on its apostolic origin, the +concept "apostolic" being much more comprehensive than that +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page55" id="page55"></a>[pg 55]</span> +of "prophet." These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen +by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the +Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writings +are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Christians +the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.<a id="footnotetag106" name="footnotetag106"></a><a href="#footnote106"><sup>106</sup></a> +This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot +be inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very +reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new +collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even +rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the character +of inspiration; and this was evidently done because they +did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their +view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.<a id="footnotetag107" name="footnotetag107"></a><a href="#footnote107"><sup>107</sup></a> The new +canon of Scripture set up by Irenæus and Tertullian primarily +professes to be nothing else than a collection of <i>apostolic</i> writings, +which, as such, claim absolute authority.<a id="footnotetag108" name="footnotetag108"></a><a href="#footnote108"><sup>108</sup></a> It takes its place +beside the apostolic rule of faith; and by this faithfully preserved +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page56" id="page56"></a>[pg 56]</span> +possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself +to be that of the Apostles.</p> + +<p>But we are very far from being able to show that such a +rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere +in the Church about the year 200. It is indeed continually +asserted that the Antiochian and Alexandrian Churches had at +that date a New Testament which, in extent and authority, +essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but this +opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch +is immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose +episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius +(VI. 12), clearly shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself +as yet possessed no such thing as a completed New Testament. +It is evident that Serapion already holds the Catholic principle +that all words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church +as words of the Lord; but a completed collection of apostolic +writings was not yet at his disposal.<a id="footnotetag109" name="footnotetag109"></a><a href="#footnote109"><sup>109</sup></a> Hence it is very improbable +that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as early +as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, +in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise "ad Autolycum" +point to a completed New Testament.<a id="footnotetag110" name="footnotetag110"></a><a href="#footnote110"><sup>110</sup></a> Theophilus makes +diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist +John (C. I. 1.) as one of the bearers of the Spirit. But with him +the one canonical court of appeal is the Scriptures of the Old +Testament, that is, the writings of the Prophets (bearers of the +Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets, however, are continued +in a further group of "bearers of the Spirit," which we cannot +definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors +of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is +remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. +Though he perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as "bearers +of the Spirit," yet we have no indication that he looked on +their <i>Epistles</i> as canonical. The different way he uses the Old +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page57" id="page57"></a>[pg 57]</span> +Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline +Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theophilus +was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we have no +reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he does +not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle +to the Hebrews, as well as 1st Peter and the Revelation of +John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an +acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles.<a id="footnotetag111" name="footnotetag111"></a><a href="#footnote111"><sup>111</sup></a></p> + +<p>It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the +material found in Theophilus and the original document of the +first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that +the formation of a New Testament canon was not everywhere +determined by the same interest and therefore did not everywhere +take a similar course. It might seem hazardous to +assume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by +creating a fixed canon of <i>apostolic</i> writings, which was thus +necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities +applied or did not deny the notion of inspiration to a great +number of venerable and ancient writings not rigidly defined, +and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of +view, till a later date. But the latter development not only +corresponds to the indication found in Justin, but in my opinion +may be verified from the copious accounts of Clement of +Alexandria.<a id="footnotetag112" name="footnotetag112"></a><a href="#footnote112"><sup>112</sup></a> In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians +Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, <i>i.e.</i>, inspired +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page58" id="page58"></a>[pg 58]</span> +writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is +based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, +or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth +are in his view inspired.<a id="footnotetag113" name="footnotetag113"></a><a href="#footnote113"><sup>113</sup></a> This opinion, however, does not +exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires +it. (2) The Old Testament, a fixed collection of books, is +regarded by Clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the +divine, that is, inspired book <i>par excellence</i>. (3) As Clement in +theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he +distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the +old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula "Gospel" +(το ευαγγελιον) and "Apostles" ('οι αποστολοι) are likewise +viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as +forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances are +deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that +he considered and treated as completely on a level with the +Old Testament. The formula: 'ο νομος και 'οι προφηται και το +ευαγγελιον ("the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel") is +frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, +is judged by this group.<a id="footnotetag114" name="footnotetag114"></a><a href="#footnote114"><sup>114</sup></a> He does not consider even the +Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with +the Gospels, though he occasionally describes them as γραφαι.<a id="footnotetag115" name="footnotetag115"></a><a href="#footnote115"><sup>115</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page59" id="page59"></a>[pg 59]</span> +A further class of writings stands a stage lower than the Pauline +Epistles, viz., the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd +of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to say that Clement views +this group as an appendix to the New Testament, or as in any +sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the +existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of +equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved.<a id="footnotetag116" name="footnotetag116"></a><a href="#footnote116"><sup>116</sup></a> (6) As +to certain books, such as the "Teaching of the Apostles," the +"Kerygma of Peter," etc., it remains quite doubtful what +authority Clement attributed to them.<a id="footnotetag117" name="footnotetag117"></a><a href="#footnote117"><sup>117</sup></a> He quotes the Διδαχη +as γραφη. (7) In determining and estimating the sacred books of +the New Testament Clement is manifestly influenced by an +ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four Gospels and no +more because that was the exact number handed down. This +tradition had already applied the name "apostolic" to most +Christian writings which were to be considered as γραφαι, but +it had given the concept "apostolic" a far wider content than +Irenæus and Tertullian,<a id="footnotetag118" name="footnotetag118"></a><a href="#footnote118"><sup>118</sup></a> although it had not been able to +include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred +under this idea. (Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the +Alexandrian <i>Church</i> can neither have held the principle +that all writings of the Apostles must be read in the Church +and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old Testament, +nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic—using this +word also in its wider sense—has any claim to authority among +Christians. We willingly admit the great degree of freedom +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page60" id="page60"></a>[pg 60]</span> +and peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknowledge +the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to +ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing +standard authority in the <i>Church</i>. Nevertheless it may be +assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the +content of the New Testament canon, or, to speak more +correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had +not yet been finally settled in Alexandria.</p> + +<p>The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may +perhaps be described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had +attributed an authority to a great number of early Christian +writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or +making it equal to that of the Old Testament. Whatever +professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying +was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the +Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in +proportion as Christians became more incapable of producing +the like themselves. Not long before Clement wrote, however, +a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early +Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria also. But, +while in the regions represented by Irenæus and Tertullian the +canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to +speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. +Here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of +great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was +otherwise applied than at Rome. A conservative proceeding +was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the +permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as inspired. +In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim +all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning +to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin +to many of them. This explains their judgment as to the +Epistle to the Hebrews, and how Barnabas and Clement were +described by them as Apostles.<a id="footnotetag119" name="footnotetag119"></a><a href="#footnote119"><sup>119</sup></a> Had this undertaking succeeded +in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page61" id="page61"></a>[pg 61]</span> +than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it +was really the intention of those first Alexandrian collectors to +place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testament, +side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking +was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In +view of the difference of Clement's attitude to the various +groups within this collection of γραφαι, we may assert that in +the Alexandrian <i>Church</i> of that time Gospels and Apostles were +indeed ranked with the Law and the Prophets, but that this +position of equality with the Old Testament was not assigned +to all the writings that were prized either on the score of +inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was +that the great collection of early Christian literature that was +inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been +used so much in public worship as the Old Testament and the +Gospels.</p> + +<p>Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament +a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the +writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those +of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church +at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book; but +the process which led to it had begun. She had come much +nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the +writings included in the New Testament of the West were all +regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood +in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The +principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more +surely applied. Accordingly the extent of "Holy Scripture" +was already limited in the days of Origen. Yet we have to +thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic +Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, +which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process +was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page62" id="page62"></a>[pg 62]</span> +designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as +"Antilegomena." The historian of dogma can take no great interest +in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon +being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this +was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent +of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, +and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish +a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely +determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt +of great importance to Church history, because they show +us the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different +periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by +their learned men.</p> + +<p><i>Addendum.</i>—The results arising from the formation of a part +of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and +meritorious act of the Church<a id="footnotetag120" name="footnotetag120"></a><a href="#footnote120"><sup>120</sup></a>, notwithstanding the fact that it +was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be +summed up in a series of antitheses. (1) The New Testament, or +group of "apostolic" writings formed by selection, preserved +from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable +one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest +of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, +to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.<a id="footnotetag121" name="footnotetag121"></a><a href="#footnote121"><sup>121</sup></a> +(2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end +to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding +on Christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible the +production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme +dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room +for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the +Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page63" id="page63"></a>[pg 63]</span> +time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed +on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.<a id="footnotetag122" name="footnotetag122"></a><a href="#footnote122"><sup>122</sup></a> (3) The +New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical +origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline +Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for +a thorough study of all those documents. Although primarily +the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more +than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New +Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately +commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, +even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled +original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and +gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, +without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the +natural development of the traditional system. As the standard +of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic <i>regula +fidei</i>, always more and more precisely explained, and as that +<i>regula</i>, in its Antignostic and philosophico-theological interpretation, +was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was +explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that +had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the +spirit of the New Testament could only assert itself in certain +undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But +the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total +secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed +a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of "facts." But at +the same time its claim to be a collection of <i>inspired</i> writings<a id="footnotetag123" name="footnotetag123"></a><a href="#footnote123"><sup>123</sup></a> +naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such as the +principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute +clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page64" id="page64"></a>[pg 64]</span> +followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of +theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within +which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from +putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By +doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals +and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this +weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it +maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, +became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the +danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. +(6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on +a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving +to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so +often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it +brought about an examination of the relation between the Old +and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry +into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation. +The immediate result of this investigation was not only +a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but also a theory +which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority +and <i>subordinated</i> the Old to the New. This result, which can +be plainly seen in Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to +exceedingly important consequences.<a id="footnotetag124" name="footnotetag124"></a><a href="#footnote124"><sup>124</sup></a> It gave some degree of +insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in +certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to +reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by +heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity +from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination +imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the +Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always +continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to +the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the +truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page65" id="page65"></a>[pg 65]</span> +of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions.<a id="footnotetag125" name="footnotetag125"></a><a href="#footnote125"><sup>125</sup></a> +(7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words +of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the +creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it +a new range and content and a new significance. But, with +the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the +highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a +guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it +introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church. +(8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive possession +of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of +every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of +every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament; +but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she +created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with +the keenest weapons against herself.<a id="footnotetag126" name="footnotetag126"></a><a href="#footnote126"><sup>126</sup></a> The place of the Gospel +was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which +theoretically acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, +the Catholic Church never became a religion "of the book," +because every inconvenient text could be explained away by +the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of +as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this +latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.<a id="footnotetag127" name="footnotetag127"></a><a href="#footnote127"><sup>127</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page66" id="page66"></a>[pg 66]</span> +In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament +to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes +with heretics.<a id="footnotetag128" name="footnotetag128"></a><a href="#footnote128"><sup>128</sup></a> On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the +directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian +life,<a id="footnotetag129" name="footnotetag129"></a><a href="#footnote129"><sup>129</sup></a> and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts +that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely +applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still +more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict +with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the +Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine +(regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all +controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture passages, +was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the +Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely +independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition +could be appealed to; and the rule πολιτευεσθαι κατα το +ευαγγελιον ("live according to the Gospel") held good in every +respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by +the other one, viz., κατα την καινην διαθηκην ("according to the +New Testament"), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the +earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of <i>life and conduct</i>.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page67" id="page67"></a>[pg 67]</span> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_II_C" id="SEC_II_C"></a>C. <i>The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into +an apostolic office. The history of the remodelling +of the conception of the Church.</i><a id="footnotetag130" name="footnotetag130"></a><a href="#footnote130"><sup>130</sup></a></h3> + +<p>1. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of +apostolic origin, <i>i.e.</i>, that the Apostles had set up a rule of +faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the +Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration +was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed +an apostolic origin for their <i>regulæ</i>, and in different ways tried +to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting +the Apostles' doctrine in all its purity.<a id="footnotetag131" name="footnotetag131"></a><a href="#footnote131"><sup>131</sup></a> An historical +demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old +Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose +apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could +not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have +preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt +form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by +apostolic Christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine +between the other communities and these.<a id="footnotetag132" name="footnotetag132"></a><a href="#footnote132"><sup>132</sup></a> But Irenæus as +well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed +to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really +at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General +considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would +otherwise have temporarily perished, or "that one event among +many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature +is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition" +("Nullus inter multos eventus unus est ... quod apud multos unum +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page68" id="page68"></a>[pg 68]</span> +invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum") and similar ones which +Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But +the dogmatic conception that the <i>ecclesiæ</i> (or <i>ecclesia</i>) are the +abode of the Holy Spirit,<a id="footnotetag133" name="footnotetag133"></a><a href="#footnote133"><sup>133</sup></a> was incapable of making any impression +on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory +was the very point in question. To make their proof more +precise Tertullian and Irenæus therefore asserted that the +Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, +inasmuch as they could point to a chain of "elders," or, in +other words, an "ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio +decurrens," which was a pledge that nothing false had been +mixed up with it.<a id="footnotetag134" name="footnotetag134"></a><a href="#footnote134"><sup>134</sup></a> This thesis has quite as many aspects as +the conception of the "Elders," <i>e.g.</i>, disciples of the Apostles, +disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page69" id="page69"></a>[pg 69]</span> +preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. +The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation +of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series +of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore +ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, +no appeal to the "Elders" was capable of affording the +assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenæus the historical view of +the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, +by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the +heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered constitution +of the Church and the authoritative position that the +bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, +<i>i.e.</i>, the bishops, had received "cum episcopatus successione +certum veritatis charisma," that is, their office conferred on them +the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively +attached to this dignity as a <i>charism</i>. This notion of the transmissibility +of the charism of truth became associated with the episcopal +office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising +authority over the Church in all its relations;<a id="footnotetag135" name="footnotetag135"></a><a href="#footnote135"><sup>135</sup></a> and after the +bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the +communities against the attacks of the secular power and of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page70" id="page70"></a>[pg 70]</span> +heresy.<a id="footnotetag136" name="footnotetag136"></a><a href="#footnote136"><sup>136</sup></a> In Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we only find the +first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded +the <i>Churches</i> as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far +as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful +influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic +view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the +heretics. Neither Irenæus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings,<a id="footnotetag137" name="footnotetag137"></a><a href="#footnote137"><sup>137</sup></a> +asserted that the transmission of the <i>charisma veritatis</i> to the +bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its +full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenæus, received the +"locum magisterii apostolorum" ("place of government of the +Apostles"), but nothing more. It is only the later writings of +Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, +which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had +imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority +of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus +described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full +sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity +much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. +Even Tertullian did not question this last mentioned attribute +of the bishops.<a id="footnotetag138" name="footnotetag138"></a><a href="#footnote138"><sup>138</sup></a> Cyprian found the theory already in existence, +but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page71" id="page71"></a>[pg 71]</span> +remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception +of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation.</p> + +<p>2. The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian +completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page72" id="page72"></a>[pg 72]</span> +place from the last half of the second century.<a id="footnotetag139" name="footnotetag139"></a><a href="#footnote139"><sup>139</sup></a> In order to +understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with +slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed +the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea +of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition +reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of +the history of dogma up to the present day.</p> + +<p>The essential character of Christendom in its first period was +a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page73" id="page73"></a>[pg 73]</span> +towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by +the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit +and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, +or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her +unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in +brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal +and a common hope.<a id="footnotetag140" name="footnotetag140"></a><a href="#footnote140"><sup>140</sup></a> The assembly of all Christians is realised +in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians +and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, +properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community +inseparable from the heavenly Christ. Christians believe that +they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from +its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal +is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a +holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.<a id="footnotetag141" name="footnotetag141"></a><a href="#footnote141"><sup>141</sup></a> +Every individual congregation is to be an image of the heavenly +Church.<a id="footnotetag142" name="footnotetag142"></a><a href="#footnote142"><sup>142</sup></a> Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast +between the empirical community and the heavenly Church +whose earthly likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these +did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of +God, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential +thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There +was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an outward +legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the +personal Christianity of the individual Christian.<a id="footnotetag143" name="footnotetag143"></a><a href="#footnote143"><sup>143</sup></a> All the lofty +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page74" id="page74"></a>[pg 74]</span> +designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and +Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the +Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven +and returns thither.<a id="footnotetag144" name="footnotetag144"></a><a href="#footnote144"><sup>144</sup></a></p> + +<p>But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the +world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made +the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised +as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in +certain respects as the main one. Christendom protected itself +by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To +Irenæus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, +traditional faith which legitimises her.<a id="footnotetag145" name="footnotetag145"></a><a href="#footnote145"><sup>145</sup></a> But this faith itself +appeared as a <i>law</i> and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are +of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim +became uncertain and threatened to vanish ("fides in regula posita +est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis").</p> + +<p>The Church herself, however, became a union based on the +true doctrine and visible in it; and this confederation was at +the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by +means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and +the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character +assumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact +that, since the latter half of the second century, Christians in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page75" id="page75"></a>[pg 75]</span> +all parts of the world had really united in opposition to +the state and "heresy," and had found compensation for the +incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical +obligations in the consciousness of forming an ecumenical and +international alliance. The designation "Catholic Church" gave +expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith +to represent the true Church.<a id="footnotetag146" name="footnotetag146"></a><a href="#footnote146"><sup>146</sup></a> This expression corresponds to the +powerful position which the "great Church" (Celsus), or the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page76" id="page76"></a>[pg 76]</span> +"old" Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the +second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the +school sects, the Christian associations of all kinds, and the +independent Christians. This Church, however, was declared +to be apostolic, <i>i.e.</i>, founded in its present form by Christ +through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported +by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already +proclaimed the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely +forgotten how Christ and his Apostles had exercised their +ministry, and an empirical conception of the Church was created +in which the idea of a holy life in the Spirit could no longer +be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ received from +God a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to +the Apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which +they were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church +(Iren. III. 4. I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic +heritage, has the assurance of possessing the Spirit; whereas +all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not +received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are therefore +separated from Christ and salvation.<a id="footnotetag147" name="footnotetag147"></a><a href="#footnote147"><sup>147</sup></a> Hence one must be +a member of this Church in order to be a partaker of salvation, +because in her alone one can find the creed which must be +recognised as the condition of redemption.<a id="footnotetag148" name="footnotetag148"></a><a href="#footnote148"><sup>148</sup></a> Consequently, in +proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the Catholic +Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the +individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page77" id="page77"></a>[pg 77]</span> +but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of +the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). +It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 +Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there <i>must</i> +be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and that the Ark +of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.<a id="footnotetag149" name="footnotetag149"></a><a href="#footnote149"><sup>149</sup></a> The +departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed +in this statement. But the following facts must not be overlooked:—First, +the new conception of the Church was not +yet a hierarchical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and +unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. +Thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid +Church also represents the creative power of the Christian +spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the +Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some +measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary +misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a +Church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance +of redemption by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion +and that of the Old Testament, could no longer be lost to +believers. Sixthly, the independence of each individual community +had a wide scope not only at the end of the second +but also in the third century.<a id="footnotetag150" name="footnotetag150"></a><a href="#footnote150"><sup>150</sup></a> Consequently, though the +revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of the +situation of the communities in the world in general and of the +struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though +it was a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic +Churches, this change did not take place without an exalting +of the Christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness.</p> + +<p>But there was never a time in history when the conception +of the Church, as nothing else than the visible communion of +those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped +or exclusively emphasised. In Irenæus and Tertullian we +rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page78" id="page78"></a>[pg 78]</span> +Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, +that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance. +As to the first point, Irenæus frequently asserts that the Spirit +and the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; +that the Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she +needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the +faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy Church +there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very +essence of his teaching. But, since she was also regarded as +the visible institution for objectively preserving and communicating +the truth, and since the idea of the Church in contradistinction +to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far +as Irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could +not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify +the earthly Catholic Church.<a id="footnotetag151" name="footnotetag151"></a><a href="#footnote151"><sup>151</sup></a> The proposition that truth is +only to be found in the Church and that she and the Holy +Spirit are inseparable must be understood in Irenæus as already +referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every +other calling itself Christian.<a id="footnotetag152" name="footnotetag152"></a><a href="#footnote152"><sup>152</sup></a> As to the second point, it cannot +be denied that, though Irenæus desires to maintain that +the only essential part of the idea of the Church is the fact of +her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able +to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal succession +and the transmission to the bishops of the <i>magisterium</i> of +the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his +idea of the Church, but they were of consequence for the +preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of +the Church also. To Irenæus, however, that theory was still +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page79" id="page79"></a>[pg 79]</span> +nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really +supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.<a id="footnotetag153" name="footnotetag153"></a><a href="#footnote153"><sup>153</sup></a> +Tertullian's conception of the Church was essentially +the same as that of Irenæus; but with the former the idea that +she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a +communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to +operate more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period +of his life Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that +the Antignostic idea of the Church being based on the "traditio +unius sacramenti" fell into the background. Consequently we +find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of +the Church in Tertullian. But towards the end of his life he +found himself face to face with a <i>fully developed</i> theory of this +kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, +advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and +therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved him in a +contradiction of the other theory—which he also never gave +up—viz., that the bishops, as the class which transmits the rule +of faith, are an apostolic institution and therefore necessary to +the Church<a id="footnotetag154" name="footnotetag154"></a><a href="#footnote154"><sup>154</sup></a>.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page80" id="page80"></a>[pg 80]</span> + +<p>From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how +vigorous the old conception of the Church, as the heavenly +communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be +about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we +have already said as to Clement's views about the rule of faith, +the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his +philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to +the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be +more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenæus.<a id="footnotetag155" name="footnotetag155"></a><a href="#footnote155"><sup>155</sup></a> +Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the +Stromateis, and in the Pædagogus, Clement simply speaks of +the Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and +the Shepherd of Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued +in that which appears on earth as her image. Instead of +distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of +God's will aiming at the salvation of man—a Church which is +to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the +subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, +beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is +influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies +this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the +visible "Church" in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the +empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the +institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely +adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in +polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled +nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the +Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the +elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page81" id="page81"></a>[pg 81]</span> +as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, +because he was still able to attribute independent value to +Gnosis, that is, to independent piety as he understood it.<a id="footnotetag156" name="footnotetag156"></a><a href="#footnote156"><sup>156</sup></a> +Consequently, as regards the conception of the Church, the +mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious +enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so much.<a id="footnotetag157" name="footnotetag157"></a><a href="#footnote157"><sup>157</sup></a> +The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement's idea +of the Church is concerned.<a id="footnotetag158" name="footnotetag158"></a><a href="#footnote158"><sup>158</sup></a> At first Origen entirely agrees +with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with +the theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion +and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly +before him.<a id="footnotetag159" name="footnotetag159"></a><a href="#footnote159"><sup>159</sup></a> When opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, +cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church, +because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page82" id="page82"></a>[pg 82]</span> +refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.<a id="footnotetag160" name="footnotetag160"></a><a href="#footnote160"><sup>160</sup></a> But Origen is +influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely +hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by the +actual course of events and signified a further development in +the idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw +himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction +between the essence and the outward appearance of the Church, +and, in this process, reached results which again called in +question the identification of the Holy Church with the empiric +Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter). Secondly, +in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful +position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip +the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old +Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,<a id="footnotetag161" name="footnotetag161"></a><a href="#footnote161"><sup>161</sup></a> +arrived at the idea that she was the earthly Kingdom of God, +destined to enter the world, to absorb the Roman Empire and +indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the +various secular states.<a id="footnotetag162" name="footnotetag162"></a><a href="#footnote162"><sup>162</sup></a> This magnificent idea, which regards +the Church as κοσμος του κοσμου<a id="footnotetag163" name="footnotetag163"></a><a href="#footnote163"><sup>163</sup></a>, denoted indeed a complete +departure from the original theory of the subject, determined +by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page83" id="page83"></a>[pg 83]</span> +that Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new +polity. Hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of +connection with the Church,<a id="footnotetag164" name="footnotetag164"></a><a href="#footnote164"><sup>164</sup></a> we already find in his theory a +combination of all the features that became essential parts of +the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the +exception of the clerical element.<a id="footnotetag165" name="footnotetag165"></a><a href="#footnote165"><sup>165</sup></a></p> + +<p>3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear +to us, in Irenæus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and +Origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none +of these Fathers made the Church the subject of a theological +theory.<a id="footnotetag166" name="footnotetag166"></a><a href="#footnote166"><sup>166</sup></a> Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old +article: "I believe in a holy Church." But, at the same time, +actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in +altering the Church's belief, forced her to <i>realise</i> her changed +position, for she had in point of fact become an association +which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected +everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this +association with the ideal Church was a matter of course,<a id="footnotetag167" name="footnotetag167"></a><a href="#footnote167"><sup>167</sup></a> but +it was quite as natural to take no immediate <i>theoretical</i> notice +of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely +necessary, that is, in polemics. In the latter case the unity of +faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and +the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of +the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition +in heart and life. From the principle that had been set +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page84" id="page84"></a>[pg 84]</span> +up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on +which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could +not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until <i>living</i> authorities +could be pointed to in this court, and until <i>every</i> possible +cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. +An empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written +word, but only by persons; for the written law will always +separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can +tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, +provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole +to their own ambition. We have seen how Irenæus and +Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the <i>fides +catholica</i> and <i>ecclesia catholica</i> as inseparably connected,<a id="footnotetag168" name="footnotetag168"></a><a href="#footnote168"><sup>168</sup></a> were +already compelled to have recourse to bishops in order to +ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts within the sphere +of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called Montanism, +but finally and above all, the existing situation of the Church +in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, +made the question of organisation the vital one for her. Tertullian +and Origen already found themselves face to face with +episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their +own way, they endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman +bishop<a id="footnotetag169" name="footnotetag169"></a><a href="#footnote169"><sup>169</sup></a> who first converted the proposition that the bishops are +direct successors of the Apostles and have the same "locus magisterii" +("place of government") into a theory which declares that +<i>all</i> apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these +have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their office.<a id="footnotetag170" name="footnotetag170"></a><a href="#footnote170"><sup>170</sup></a> +Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page85" id="page85"></a>[pg 85]</span> +In one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising +process which had been completed by the Roman bishop, +in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the +Church's existence (see the following chapter). In the second +half of the third century there were no longer any Churches, +except remote communities, where the only requirement was to +preserve the Catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. The +idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main +one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith +as a bond of unity. <i>The Church based on the bishops, the +successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the +legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation.</i> This +idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East, +though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less +certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy +was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began +to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand, +circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a +finished theory.<a id="footnotetag171" name="footnotetag171"></a><a href="#footnote171"><sup>171</sup></a> According to Cyprian, the Catholic Church, +to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible +apply (see Hartel's index under "ecclesia"), is the one institution +of salvation outside of which there is no redemption +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page86" id="page86"></a>[pg 86]</span> +(ep. 73. 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community +possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not +exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.<a id="footnotetag172" name="footnotetag172"></a><a href="#footnote172"><sup>172</sup></a> +This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, +which sustains her,<a id="footnotetag173" name="footnotetag173"></a><a href="#footnote173"><sup>173</sup></a> because it is the continuance of the apostolic +office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.<a id="footnotetag174" name="footnotetag174"></a><a href="#footnote174"><sup>174</sup></a> +Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and +therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence +on the bishop, <i>i.e.</i>, such a connection alone makes one a member +of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an +attribute of equal importance with her truth, because this union +is only brought about by love,<a id="footnotetag175" name="footnotetag175"></a><a href="#footnote175"><sup>175</sup></a> primarily appears in the unity +of the episcopate. For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has +been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page87" id="page87"></a>[pg 87]</span> +so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and +guided by God, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, +and each bishop represents the whole significance of +the episcopate.<a id="footnotetag176" name="footnotetag176"></a><a href="#footnote176"><sup>176</sup></a> Hence the individual bishops are no longer +to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, +but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these +prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of +the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the +circumstances of his own diocese.<a id="footnotetag177" name="footnotetag177"></a><a href="#footnote177"><sup>177</sup></a> But it also follows that +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page88" id="page88"></a>[pg 88]</span> +the bishops of those communities founded by the Apostles themselves +can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity +of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves +the equality of all bishops.<a id="footnotetag178" name="footnotetag178"></a><a href="#footnote178"><sup>178</sup></a> However, a special importance +attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat of the +Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in +order to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these +powers and the corresponding unity of the Church that rests +on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the +Church of this see had become the mother and root of the +Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a severe crisis which +Cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he appealed +to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which +made it appear as if communion with that Church was in itself +the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical +baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically +denied the latter's pretensions to exercise special rights over +the Church in consequence of the Petrine succession.<a id="footnotetag179" name="footnotetag179"></a><a href="#footnote179"><sup>179</sup></a> Finally, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page89" id="page89"></a>[pg 89]</span> +although Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the +Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved +the Christian element so far as to assume in all his statements +that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keeping +with their office, and that otherwise they have <i>ipso facto</i> +forfeited it.<a id="footnotetag180" name="footnotetag180"></a><a href="#footnote180"><sup>180</sup></a> Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office +does not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other +bishops of Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For +more details on this point, as well as with regard to the contradictions +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page90" id="page90"></a>[pg 90]</span> +that remain unreconciled in Cyprian's conception of +the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown +the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of +the Church).</p> + +<p><i>Addendum I.</i>—The great confederation of Churches which +Cyprian presupposes and which he terms <i>the</i> Church was in +truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended +to any regions beyond the confines of the Roman Empire or +that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised +communities within those bounds.<a id="footnotetag181" name="footnotetag181"></a><a href="#footnote181"><sup>181</sup></a> But, further, the conditions +of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the +full sense in the days of Constantine, were never definitely formulated—before +the fourth century at least.<a id="footnotetag182" name="footnotetag182"></a><a href="#footnote182"><sup>182</sup></a> Accordingly, the +idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all Christians and +founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in +so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian +here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears +to be refuted by actual circumstances.<a id="footnotetag183" name="footnotetag183"></a><a href="#footnote183"><sup>183</sup></a></p> + +<p><i>Addendum II.</i>—The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the +Church. The designation 'αιρεσις implies an adherence to something +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page91" id="page91"></a>[pg 91]</span> +self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something +objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the +particular thing in which the apostasy consists. Hence all +those who call themselves Christians and yet do not adhere to +the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain +and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by Hegesippus, +Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines are +as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian +religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other +interpretation of their origin would at once have been an +acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right +to their opinions,<a id="footnotetag184" name="footnotetag184"></a><a href="#footnote184"><sup>184</sup></a> and such an explanation is not quite foreign +to Origen in one of his lines of argument.<a id="footnotetag185" name="footnotetag185"></a><a href="#footnote185"><sup>185</sup></a> Hence the orthodox +party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to +any sacrament<a id="footnotetag186" name="footnotetag186"></a><a href="#footnote186"><sup>186</sup></a> or acts esteemed in their own communion, +when these were performed by heretics;<a id="footnotetag187" name="footnotetag187"></a><a href="#footnote187"><sup>187</sup></a> and this was a practical +application of the saying that the devil could transform +himself into an angel of light.<a id="footnotetag188" name="footnotetag188"></a><a href="#footnote188"><sup>188</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page92" id="page92"></a>[pg 92]</span> + +<p>But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely +identify the Church with a harmoniously organised institution. +For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christianity +of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when +these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. +Though we are by no means entitled to say that they +acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture +to reckon them simply as heretics.<a id="footnotetag189" name="footnotetag189"></a><a href="#footnote189"><sup>189</sup></a> If it was desired to get +rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation +from the rule of faith; and under this pretext the Church +freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians.<a id="footnotetag190" name="footnotetag190"></a><a href="#footnote190"><sup>190</sup></a> Cyprian +was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics, +by making a man's Christianity depend on his belonging to +the great episcopal Church confederation.<a id="footnotetag191" name="footnotetag191"></a><a href="#footnote191"><sup>191</sup></a> But, both in East +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page93" id="page93"></a>[pg 93]</span> +and West, this theory of his became established only by very +imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process +was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics +and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public +denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political +grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, +and because it was always possible in case of need to prove +heresy against the schismatics.<a id="footnotetag192" name="footnotetag192"></a><a href="#footnote192"><sup>192</sup></a></p> + +<p><i>Addendum III.</i>—As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops +was proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, +we have the fundamental premises for the conception that +everything progressively adopted by the Church, all her functions, +institutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously +changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. But the courage +to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that +certain portions of tradition, such as the New Testament canon +of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all +exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with +slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences +from the idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and +these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some +degree of uncertainty. The idea of the παραδοσις αγραφος; (unwritten +tradition); <i>i.e.</i>, that every custom, however recent, within +the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, discipline, +etc., is as holy and apostolic as the Bible and the "faith", +never succeeded in gaining complete acceptance. In this case, +complicated, uncertain, and indistinct assumptions were the result.</p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote20" name="footnote20"></a><b>Footnote 20:</b><a href="#footnotetag20"> (return) </a><p> +In itself the predicate "Catholic" contains no element that signifies a secularising +of the Church. "Catholic" originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted +with single congregations. Hence the concepts "all communities" and the "universal +Church" are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element +in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to +have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved +the conviction that only that could be true which was found <i>everywhere</i> in +Christendom. +Consequently, "entire or universal Christendom," "the Church spread over +the whole earth," and "the true Church" were regarded as identical conceptions. +In this way the concept "Catholic" became a pregnant one, and finally received +a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not +inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote21" name="footnote21"></a><b>Footnote 21:</b><a href="#footnotetag21"> (return) </a><p> +<i>Translator's note.</i> The following is Tertullian's Latin as given by Professor +Harnack: Cap. 21: "Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis +matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem +quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit." +Cap. 36: "Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum +Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem +universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis +resurrectionem; +legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde +potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium +exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit." Chap. 32: "Evolvant +ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut +primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum +apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote22" name="footnote22"></a><b>Footnote 22:</b><a href="#footnotetag22"> (return) </a><p>None of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first +six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the third century and +are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the +one hand, and the bishop, as the God of the community, on the other, are taken +as authorities.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote23" name="footnote23"></a><b>Footnote 23:</b><a href="#footnotetag23"> (return) </a><p>See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the +Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially +p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the +'απαξ παραδοθεισα τοις 'αγιοις πιστις, and in v. 20 of "building yourselves +up in your most holy +faith." See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions +κανων της πιστεως, κανων της αληθειας, or the like, might stand for +πιστις, for the faith +itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible +and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the +conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an +excellent investigation of the concept 'ο κανων της αληθειας cum synonymis +(Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote24" name="footnote24"></a><b>Footnote 24:</b><a href="#footnotetag24"> (return) </a><p>In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the +Confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula +πιστεωυ εις 'ενα θεον παντακρατορα, which did not originate with the baptismal +ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the +strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside +of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote25" name="footnote25"></a><b>Footnote 25:</b><a href="#footnotetag25"> (return) </a><p>See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is not surprising that +formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of +demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the +wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established +fact that in Justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of +Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow +from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign +of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more +natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily +borrowed from a baptismal confession.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote26" name="footnote26"></a><b>Footnote 26:</b><a href="#footnotetag26"> (return) </a><p>These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded +to in Luke I. 4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote27" name="footnote27"></a><b>Footnote 27:</b><a href="#footnotetag27"> (return) </a><p>The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact studies is the +establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. +(Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols +u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des +Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. +Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article "Apostol. +Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, +Chap. III. § 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote28" name="footnote28"></a><b>Footnote 28:</b><a href="#footnotetag28"> (return) </a><p>This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular +statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are +found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, +pp. 115-42.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote29" name="footnote29"></a><b>Footnote 29:</b><a href="#footnotetag29"> (return) </a><p> +The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature +and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking +that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, +and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. +There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be +attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of +Catholicism.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote30" name="footnote30"></a><b>Footnote 30:</b><a href="#footnotetag30"> (return) </a><p>This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of +dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development +of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the Διδαχη, received an additional +factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great +reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become +the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in +this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the +background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation +for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always +inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation +of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ +in these cases.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote31" name="footnote31"></a><b>Footnote 31:</b><a href="#footnotetag31"> (return) </a><p> +See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of +Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II. 1, VI. 3, Justin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote32" name="footnote32"></a><b>Footnote 32:</b><a href="#footnotetag32"> (return) </a><p> +In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue +to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of +prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On +the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his +apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent +of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at +all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; +but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to Theophilus' remarks in "ad +Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ +and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical +with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. +p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of Irenæus +and Tertullian. We find him using the expression ορθογνωμονες in Dial. 80. The +resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there +reckoned among the beliefs held by the ορθογνωμονες κατα παντα Χριστιανοι. But +it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between +the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom +he gives the general testimony that they are της καθαρας και ευσεβους γνωμης, +though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. +Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They +have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point +is guilty of breaking it all.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote33" name="footnote33"></a><b>Footnote 33:</b><a href="#footnotetag33"> (return) </a><p>Hatch, "Organisation of the Church," p. 96.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote34" name="footnote34"></a><b>Footnote 34:</b><a href="#footnotetag34"> (return) </a><p>We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with +Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, +adhering to Polycarp's exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. +23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote35" name="footnote35"></a><b>Footnote 35:</b><a href="#footnotetag35"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the +third book. Unfortunately his treatise, "λογος εις επιδειξιν του +αποστολικου κηρυγματος", +probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved +(Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote36" name="footnote36"></a><b>Footnote 36:</b><a href="#footnotetag36"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all Churches—those in Germany, +Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; +III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq.—possess the same apostolic <i>kerygma</i>; but "qui nimis +probat +nihil probat." The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory +is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic +speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote37" name="footnote37"></a><b>Footnote 37:</b><a href="#footnotetag37"> (return) </a><p> +We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew the tradition of the +Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat at the feet of Polycarp and +associated in his youth with many of the "elders" in Asia. Of these he knew for certain +that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not +have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation +of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing +to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 +and his numerous references to the "elders" in his great work. (A collection of +these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote38" name="footnote38"></a><b>Footnote 38:</b><a href="#footnotetag38"> (return) </a><p> +Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule +of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit +resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the +explanations +of the baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was +transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful +explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed +to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This +explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus' time, we meet with differently +formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be +<i>the</i> rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted +above, +that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has +not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which +they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church +needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely +interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in +all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, +along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no +doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for +the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and +they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic +collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard +in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma—we do not know +how it was viewed by opponents—proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled +churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time +continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. We must make the +reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed +propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were +formulated.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote39" name="footnote39"></a><b>Footnote 39:</b><a href="#footnotetag39"> (return) </a><p> +Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1; II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, +4; III. 1-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1; IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; +33. 7 sq.; V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote40" name="footnote40"></a><b>Footnote 40:</b><a href="#footnotetag40"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. I. 31. 3; II. Præf. 19. 8.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote41" name="footnote41"></a><b>Footnote 41:</b><a href="#footnotetag41"> (return) </a><p>This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very common in Tertullian.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote42" name="footnote42"></a><b>Footnote 42:</b><a href="#footnotetag42"> (return) </a><p>See de præscr. 13: "Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos +quæstiones."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote43" name="footnote43"></a><b>Footnote 43:</b><a href="#footnotetag43"> (return) </a><p>See I. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet +quæras et tractes." See de virg. vol. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote44" name="footnote44"></a><b>Footnote 44:</b><a href="#footnotetag44"> (return) </a><p> +See 1. c. 14: "Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione +legis," and de vir. vol. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote45" name="footnote45"></a><b>Footnote 45:</b><a href="#footnotetag45"> (return) </a><p>See de præscr. 21: "Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ +cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati +deputandum ... Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus +regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur ... Communicamus +cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." De præscr. 32: "Ecclesiæ, +quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, +tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate +doctrinæ." That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical +with the <i>regula fidei</i>, just as Irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in de +spectac. 4 ("Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, +renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the +baptismal confession is the <i>lex</i>. He also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath) +in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the +same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. +Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. +Marc. I. 21: "regula sacramenti;" likewise V. 20, a passage specially instructive as +to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had +a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respondentes +quam dominus in evangelio determinavit;" de bapt. 2: "homo in aqua +demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus;" de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can +still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession +that was used in Carthage in the days of Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian +admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things "inter domesticos," but +declares that they could not be communications "quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote46" name="footnote46"></a><b>Footnote 46:</b><a href="#footnotetag46"> (return) </a><p>De præscr. 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus +worded: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam +οικονομιαν dicimus, ut unici del sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso +processerit, +per quern omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in +virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et +cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum +scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in cœlo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, +venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem +suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in +patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote47" name="footnote47"></a><b>Footnote 47:</b><a href="#footnotetag47"> (return) </a><p>De præscr. 13.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote48" name="footnote48"></a><b>Footnote 48:</b><a href="#footnotetag48"> (return) </a><p>L.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote49" name="footnote49"></a><b>Footnote 49:</b><a href="#footnotetag49"> (return) </a><p>L.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote50" name="footnote50"></a><b>Footnote 50:</b><a href="#footnotetag50"> (return) </a><p> +L.c.: "id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, +in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in +virginem Mariam, carnem factum," etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote51" name="footnote51"></a><b>Footnote 51:</b><a href="#footnotetag51"> (return) </a><p>L.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote52" name="footnote52"></a><b>Footnote 52:</b><a href="#footnotetag52"> (return) </a><p>Adv. Prax. 2: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione +quam οικονομιαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius," etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote53" name="footnote53"></a><b>Footnote 53:</b><a href="#footnotetag53"> (return) </a><p>But Tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinæ" (according to the New +Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no +means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more +particularly into this rule here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote54" name="footnote54"></a><b>Footnote 54:</b><a href="#footnotetag54"> (return) </a><p> +Note here the use of "contesserare" in Tertullian. See de præscr. 20: "Itaque +tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes +prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis +et appellatio fraternitatis et <i>contesseratio</i> hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia +ratio +regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De præscr. 36: "Videamus, quid +ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote55" name="footnote55"></a><b>Footnote 55:</b><a href="#footnotetag55"> (return) </a><p> +We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic +schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from +the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, +had exercised a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot +say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old +one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, +namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote56" name="footnote56"></a><b>Footnote 56:</b><a href="#footnotetag56"> (return) </a><p> +Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided +completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect +himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote57" name="footnote57"></a><b>Footnote 57:</b><a href="#footnotetag57"> (return) </a><p>Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about +the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenæus), already +set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description +of his work in Euseb., H. E. IV. 8. 2 (εν πεντε συγγραμμασιν την απλανη παραδοσιν +του αποστολικου κηρυγματος 'υπομνηματισαμενος) as well as from the fragments +of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: 'ο ορθος λογος and § 5 εμερισαν την +'ενωσιν της +εκκλησιας φθοριμαιοις λογοις κατα του θεου; see also § 4). Hegesippus already +regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates +(Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression 'ο κανων της πιστεως in a very wide +sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard +to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor. The +Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who +went to death for the κατα αληθειαν πιστις were those belonging to the Church. +The <i>regula fidei</i> is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of +dispute. +On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood +by το εκκλησιαστικον φρονημα or 'ο κανων της αρχαιας πιστεως the +interpreted +baptismal confession, just as Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees +with these (see Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are +to ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church +is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): δεδωκεν 'ο Θεος τω κοσμω κυμαινομενω και +χειμαζομενω 'υπο των 'αμαρτηματων τας συναγωγας, λεγομενας δε εκκλησιας 'αγιας, +εν αις καθαπερ λιμεσιν ευορμοις εν νησοις 'αι διδασκαλιαι της αληθειας εισιν ... Και +'ωσπερ αυ νησοι εισιν 'ετεραι πετρωδεις και ανυδροι και ακαρποι και θηριωδεις και +αοικητοι επι βλαβη των πλεοντων ... 'ουτως εισιν 'αι διδασκαλιαι της πλανης, λεγω +δε των 'αιρεσεων, 'αι εξαπολλυουσιν τους προσιοντας αυταις.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote58" name="footnote58"></a><b>Footnote 58:</b><a href="#footnotetag58"> (return) </a><p> +This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, +p. 352 ff.: "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement's time possess a baptismal +confession or not?"); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly +shows that in Clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary +of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace +the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression 'η περι των +μεγιστων 'ομολογια, Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is +supported in this view by Voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal +confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage +is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who +can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the +addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free <i>kerygma</i> of +Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved +by a reference to Orig. Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote59" name="footnote59"></a><b>Footnote 59:</b><a href="#footnotetag59"> (return) </a><p> +'Η κυριακη διδασκαλια, <i>e.g.</i>, VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; +VII. 15. 90; +VII. 18. 165, etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote60" name="footnote60"></a><b>Footnote 60:</b><a href="#footnotetag60"> (return) </a><p>We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession +related to the Roman, unless we reckon the Θεος παντοκρατωρ or +εις Θ. π. as such. +But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the +baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the +"παραδοσεις των αρχαιων πρεσβυτερων" which had been transmitted to him.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote61" name="footnote61"></a><b>Footnote 61:</b><a href="#footnotetag61"> (return) </a><p>Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as +copiously +as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression +'ο κανων τεη πιστεως; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite +general +sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: "whatever you do, do it to the +glory of God," Clement remarks 'οσα 'υπο τον κανονα της πιστεως ποιειν +επιτετραπται. +In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we +find +'ο κανων της εκκλησιας (εκκλησιαστικος). In the first passage that canon is the +rule for the +right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the +correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided +in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore +parallel to the διδασκαλια του κυριου); but Clement feels absolutely no need to +mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1. 3; VI. 15. 124; VI +15. 131; VII. 16. 94, we find the expression 'ο κανων της αληθειας. In the first +passage it is said: 'η γουν κατα τον της αληθειας κανονα γνωστικης παραδοσεως +φυσιολογια, μαλλον δε εποπτεια, εκ του περι κοσμογονιας ηρτηται λογου, ενθενδε +αναβαινουσα επι το θεολογικον ειδος. Here no one can understand by the rule of +truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in +which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He +says first: παρακαταθηκε αποδιδομενη Θεω 'η κατα την του κυριου διδασκαλιαν δια +των αποστολων αυτου της θεοσεβους παραδοσεως συνεσις τε και συνασκησις; then +he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted κατα τον της αληθειας κανονα, or +τ. +εκκλης. καν.; and continues (125): κανων δε εκκλησιαστικος 'η συνωδια και 'η +συμφωνια +νομου τε και προφητων τη κατα την του κυριου παρουσιαν παραδιδομενη +διαθηκη. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of +Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to +whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his +rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church: "legem et prophetas +cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet." But at any rate the passage shows +the broad sense in which Clement used the term "ecclesiastical canon." The following +expressions are also found in Clement: 'η αληθες της μακαριας διδασκαλιας +παραδοσις +(I. 1. 11), 'αι 'αγιαι παραδοσεις (VII. 18. 110), 'η ευκλεης και σεμνος +της παραδοσεως κανων +(all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also 'η κατα την θειαν παραδοσιν +φιλοσοφια, +I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression 'η θεια παραδοσις (VII. 16. 103), +'η εκκλησιαστικε +παραδοσις (VII. 16. 95), 'αι του Χριστου παραδοσεις (VII. 16. 99), +'η του +κυριου παραδοσις (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), 'η θεοσεβης παραδοσις (VI. 15. +124)). +Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be +gathered from the context than what Clement once calls το κοινον της πιστεως +(VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he +makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, <i>e.g.</i>, in III. 10. 66 of the +κατα +αληθειαν ευαγγελικος κανων, and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels +recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: +κατα τον κανονα του ευαγγελιου = κατα τ. ευαγγ.). In none of these +formulæ is +any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public +tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. 1. 11, where +he gives an account of his early teachers ('οι μεν την αληθη της μακαριας +σωζοντες +διδασκαλιας παραδοσιν ευθυς απο Πετρου τε και Ιακωβου, Ιωαννου τε και Παυλου +των 'αγιων αποστολων, ταις παρα πατρος εκδεχομενος 'ηκον δη συν θεω και εις 'ημας +τα προγονικα εκεινα και αποστολικα καταθησομενοι σπερματα). Clement does not +yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the +natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition +alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the +αποστολικη και εκκλησιαστικη ορθοτομια των δογματων (VII. 16. 104). He has no +doubt that: μια 'η παντων γεγονε των αποστολων 'ωσπερ διδασκαλια 'ουτως δε και +'η παραδοσις (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in +the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric +tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: +αυτικα διδαξαντος του σωτηρος τους αποστολους 'η της εγγραφου αγραφος ηδη και +εις 'ημας διαδιδοται παραδοσις. VI. 7. 61: 'η γνωσις δε αυτη 'η κατα διαδοχας +(this is +the only place where I find this expression) εις ολιγους εκ των αποστολων αγραφως +παραδοθεισα κατεληλυθεν, ibid 'η γνωστικη παραδοσις; VII. 10. 55: +'η γνωσις εκ +παραδοσεως διαδιδομενη τοις αξιους σφας αυτους της διδασκαλιας παρεχομενοις οιον +παρακαταθηκη εγχειριζεται. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories +of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and +expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the "Old Church," for so Clement +designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" +of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as +so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives +prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had +no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by +one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: Μη τι ουν, ει και παραβαιη τις +συνθηκας και την 'ομολογιαν παρελθοι την προς 'ημας, δια τον ψευσαμενον την 'ομολογιαν +αφεξομεθα της αληθειας και 'ημεις, αλλ' 'ως αψευδειν χρη τον επιεικη και μηδεν 'ων +'υπεσχηται ακυρουν καν αλλοι τινες παραβαινωσι συνθηκας, ουτως και 'ημας κατα +μηδενα τροπον τον εκκλησιαστικον παραβαινειν προσεκει κανονα και μαλιστα την +περι των μεγιστων 'ομολογιαν 'ημεις μεν φυλαττομεν, οι δε παραβαινουσι. But in +the other passages in Clement where 'ομολογια appears it nowhere signifies a +fixed +formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its +content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: +εγκρατεια σωματος 'υπεροψια κατα την προς θεον 'ομολογιαν). In the passage +quoted +it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or +probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is +also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement +identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical +with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently +in his works.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote62" name="footnote62"></a><b>Footnote 62:</b><a href="#footnotetag62"> (return) </a><p>De princip. l. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage +already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the +practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not +perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, +so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already +to be found here?</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote63" name="footnote63"></a><b>Footnote 63:</b><a href="#footnotetag63"> (return) </a><p>That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very +important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own +testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, "because he +wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn +from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, +who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen +kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with +keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger, "Hippolytus und +Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that +city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: "The West is as unknown to Clement as it +was to his favourite Homer." That there was a formulated πιστις και 'ομολογια in +Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). +He says of Novatian, ανατρεπει την προ λουτρου πιστιν και 'ομολογιαν. Dionysius +would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian +Church had not possessed a similar πιστις.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote64" name="footnote64"></a><b>Footnote 64:</b><a href="#footnotetag64"> (return) </a><p>The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the +Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote65" name="footnote65"></a><b>Footnote 65:</b><a href="#footnotetag65"> (return) </a><p>The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and +original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth +century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already +heavily weighted with theology.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote66" name="footnote66"></a><b>Footnote 66:</b><a href="#footnotetag66"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) +of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one +<i>symbol</i> with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this +expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession +expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's +time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated +that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, +"de trinitate seu de regula fidei," as well as the circular letter of the Synod of +Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 ... αποστας +του κανονος επι κιβδηλα και νοθα διδαγματα μετεληλυθεν), and the homilies of +Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the +confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an +interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently +left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote67" name="footnote67"></a><b>Footnote 67:</b><a href="#footnotetag67"> (return) </a><p>See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, +Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement +each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept +Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see +Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; +Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde +des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, +1892. Nov.; Köppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. +f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few +aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote68" name="footnote68"></a><b>Footnote 68:</b><a href="#footnotetag68"> (return) </a><p>"Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority." There +are also various stages and degrees of "holy."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote69" name="footnote69"></a><b>Footnote 69:</b><a href="#footnotetag69"> (return) </a><p>I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New +Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been +immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we +must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are +genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it +became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume +interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, +though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur's "tendency-criticism" has fallen +into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting +which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the +Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and +obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document +ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds +speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no +accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition +of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour +literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must +remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known +of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, +Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become +vigorously consolidated.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote70" name="footnote70"></a><b>Footnote 70:</b><a href="#footnotetag70"> (return) </a><p> +The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was +worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel +to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally +little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the +Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote71" name="footnote71"></a><b>Footnote 71:</b><a href="#footnotetag71"> (return) </a><p> +It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, +the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. +The same thing was done by the Manichæans in the Byzantine age.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote72" name="footnote72"></a><b>Footnote 72:</b><a href="#footnotetag72"> (return) </a><p> +Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., +2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. 1; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is +put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second +is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: +"verba 'his scripturis' suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit +quod dictum est"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from +the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us +from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage (μηποτε, +'ως +γεγραπται, πολλοι κλητοι, ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι 'ευρεθωμεν), it should be noted that the +author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic +tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as γραφη, and must +have +drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an +enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that +it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning +words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline +Epistles). This may perhaps explain how the author—like 2 Clem. II. 4: 'ετερα δε +γραφη λεγει 'οτι ουκ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα 'αμαρτωλους—has introduced a +saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament +quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: λεγει 'ο θεος: ου χαρις 'υμιν ει +αγαπατε κ.τ.λ. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness +of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula +as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations +from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in +the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: διο λεγει: εγειρε +'ο καθευδων και αναστα εκ των νεκρων και επιφαυσει σοι 'ο Χριστος. That, +certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the +usual "λεγει". We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. +(the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: 'η γραφη +'αυτη, 'οπου λεγει. These examples may be multiplied still further. From +all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation "γραφη, +γεγραπται," etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord +and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question +had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw +attention to the following:—The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there +probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the +second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt +<i>Christian</i> writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a +collection +of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote73" name="footnote73"></a><b>Footnote 73:</b><a href="#footnotetag73"> (return) </a><p>See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv.-Citate Justins. Gott., 1891. We may also +infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus +in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, +who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the +formula: "Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti" ('αι καθ' 'ημας βιβλοι και 'αι +προσεπιτουτοις +επιστολαι Παυλου του 'οσιου ανδρος), which is found in the Acta Mart. +Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts +us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, +characteristically enough, is worded: "Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri +sanctissimi apostoli" or "Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et +omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote74" name="footnote74"></a><b>Footnote 74:</b><a href="#footnotetag74"> (return) </a><p>It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of +the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on +an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote75" name="footnote75"></a><b>Footnote 75:</b><a href="#footnotetag75"> (return) </a><p>Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote76" name="footnote76"></a><b>Footnote 76:</b><a href="#footnotetag76"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception +of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) +"Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote77" name="footnote77"></a><b>Footnote 77:</b><a href="#footnotetag77"> (return) </a><p>The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to +the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of +Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles +(quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are +wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess +the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not +named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The +extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had +approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, +the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by +introducing them with "ειδοτες" (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows +himself +to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the +New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second +century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were +used and honoured.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote78" name="footnote78"></a><b>Footnote 78:</b><a href="#footnotetag78"> (return) </a><p>It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of +Peter among the απομνημονευματα; see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote79" name="footnote79"></a><b>Footnote 79:</b><a href="#footnotetag79"> (return) </a><p> +See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian's +Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote80" name="footnote80"></a><b>Footnote 80:</b><a href="#footnotetag80"> (return) </a><p>Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he +regarded and used it like the other Gospels.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote81" name="footnote81"></a><b>Footnote 81:</b><a href="#footnotetag81"> (return) </a><p> +The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great +authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote82" name="footnote82"></a><b>Footnote 82:</b><a href="#footnotetag82"> (return) </a><p>Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote83" name="footnote83"></a><b>Footnote 83:</b><a href="#footnotetag83"> (return) </a><p>In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very +many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical +writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the +Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote84" name="footnote84"></a><b>Footnote 84:</b><a href="#footnotetag84"> (return) </a><p> +Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the ακριβεια των παλαιων +βιβλιων, and of τα βιβλια της παλαιας διαθηκης, we may assume that he knows +τα +βιβλια της καινης διαθηκης.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote85" name="footnote85"></a><b>Footnote 85:</b><a href="#footnotetag85"> (return) </a><p>We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility +of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon +almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot +be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance +that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the +Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: 'οι απο των 'αιρεσεων τας προς Τιμοθεον +αθετουσιν επιστολας). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church +at all till the middle of the second century.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote86" name="footnote86"></a><b>Footnote 86:</b><a href="#footnotetag86"> (return) </a><p> +Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the "receptior," +de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment +and Tertull. de bapt. 17: "Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum +Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia +presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, +convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The hypothesis +that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament +was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. +Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who +produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the +idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way +offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the +matter. Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote87" name="footnote87"></a><b>Footnote 87:</b><a href="#footnotetag87"> (return) </a><p>Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in +the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenæus +also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus +whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis +of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the +Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian "de idololatria" to +perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for +solving all questions.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote88" name="footnote88"></a><b>Footnote 88:</b><a href="#footnotetag88"> (return) </a><p> +I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should +be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the +canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article "Das Muratorische Fragment +und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften" in +the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des +Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; +Schmiedel, Art. "Kanon" in Ersch. u. Gruber's Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII. +p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the +conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following +sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without +influence on me.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote89" name="footnote89"></a><b>Footnote 89:</b><a href="#footnotetag89"> (return) </a><p> +The use of the word "canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly +demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the +synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. +Besides, the word "canon" was not applied even to the Old Testament before the +fourth century. The name "New Testament" (books of the New Testament) is +first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see +Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullian's p. 47 f. The most common name is "Holy Scriptures." +In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as +το ευαγγελιον και 'ο αποστολος (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see +Tertullian, +de bapt. 15: "tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." The name +"writings of the Lord" is also found very early. It was already used for the +Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally +transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection +was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the +Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. +Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the +media of God's revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its +account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs" +already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned +new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the +old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration +we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also +called "the writings of the Church" as distinguished from the Old Testament and +the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it +was the Church which selected these writings.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote90" name="footnote90"></a><b>Footnote 90:</b><a href="#footnotetag90"> (return) </a><p>Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and Tertullian. The former +disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although +he has read Irenæus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered +Irenæus' efforts as successful.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote91" name="footnote91"></a><b>Footnote 91:</b><a href="#footnotetag91"> (return) </a><p>The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the +complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote92" name="footnote92"></a><b>Footnote 92:</b><a href="#footnotetag92"> (return) </a><p>That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than +probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament +writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canon +text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But +much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the +second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously +or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle +and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or +at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of +the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in +almost every individual case involved in obscurity, but the fact itself, of which +unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in +my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without +indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the "Teaching +of the Apostles" p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been +known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. +(2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, +to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) +The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by +tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic +Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard +to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp, IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, +originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into +a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given +out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an +early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to +have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, +which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, +first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good +of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as +may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle "de virginitate" +into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created +for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead +of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma +"genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote93" name="footnote93"></a><b>Footnote 93:</b><a href="#footnotetag93"> (return) </a><p> +As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim +to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, +its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote94" name="footnote94"></a><b>Footnote 94:</b><a href="#footnotetag94"> (return) </a><p> +People were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their +apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But, from the +Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the +Pauline Epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the +central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty +was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, +had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which +some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an +Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (1) writings +of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as απομνημονευματα of definite +Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, +which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation +of "difficult" passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by +the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which "in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ +disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant." The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the +understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In +this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic +tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found +its place in the canon <i>faute de mieux</i> is clear from the extravagant terms, not at +all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is +inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary +acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in +existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and +in Irenæus and Tertullian. There it is called "acta omnium apostolorum sub uno +libro scripta sunt, etc." Irenæus says (III. 14. 1): "Lucas non solum prosecutor +sed et cooperarius fuit <i>Apostolorum</i>, maxime autem Pauli," and makes use of the +book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, +de præscr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a still more +extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Antimarcionite book in the canon. +One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul +as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no +one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise +Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical +and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the διδαχη των δωδεκα αποστολων was +needed as an authority in the earlier time, a <i>book</i> which contained that authority +was required in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work +of the so-called Luke. "Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus sancti +esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, +sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum +est hoc corpus probare non habent." But the greater part of the heretics remained +obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the +Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of +Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of the Ebionites and +even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most +striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late +book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the +collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement +of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on +a level with the κηρυγμα Πετρου, but Clement has no New Testament at all in +the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood +where it is to-day, <i>i.e.</i>, immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, +Irenæus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a +much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never +really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st +and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle +of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about +the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. +But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we +yet find the group there associated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of +Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and +that of Peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the +canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side +by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different +though similar fashion by Irenæus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine +Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and +the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way +are also "Catholic." That is the character of the "Catholic" New Testament +which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenæus and Tertullian). In speaking +above of the Acts of the Apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively +to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote95" name="footnote95"></a><b>Footnote 95:</b><a href="#footnotetag95"> (return) </a><p> +There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation +was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic +rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church +formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is +found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic +standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; +whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the Church +was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote96" name="footnote96"></a><b>Footnote 96:</b><a href="#footnotetag96"> (return) </a><p> +At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, +that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the +name New Testament is not yet found in Irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving +an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. +Lit. Gesch. Bd. VI. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote97" name="footnote97"></a><b>Footnote 97:</b><a href="#footnotetag97"> (return) </a><p>See above, p. 40, note 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote98" name="footnote98"></a><b>Footnote 98:</b><a href="#footnotetag98"> (return) </a><p>We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenæus as to the difficulties +he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost +solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians +of the school of Valentinus. The difficulties of course still continued to be felt +in the period which followed. (See, <i>e.g.</i>, Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote99" name="footnote99"></a><b>Footnote 99:</b><a href="#footnotetag99"> (return) </a><p>Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) +Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote100" name="footnote100"></a><b>Footnote 100:</b><a href="#footnotetag100"> (return) </a><p>See Overbeck, "Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in +Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern," 1877, p. 8.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote101" name="footnote101"></a><b>Footnote 101:</b><a href="#footnotetag101"> (return) </a><p>See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The expression is also +frequent in Origen, <i>e.g.</i>, de princip. præf. 4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote102" name="footnote102"></a><b>Footnote 102:</b><a href="#footnotetag102"> (return) </a><p>The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own words +as the words of God (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and therefore requires obedience "τοις 'υφ' +'ημων γεγραμμενοις δια του 'αγιου πνευματος" (LXIII. 2).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote103" name="footnote103"></a><b>Footnote 103:</b><a href="#footnotetag103"> (return) </a><p>Tertull. de exhort. 4: "Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non +omnes fideles apostoli ... Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene +habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non +ex parte, quod ceteri." Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: 'Εκαστος ιδιον εχει +χαρισμα +απο θεου, 'ο μεν 'ουτως, 'ο δε 'ουτως, 'οι αποστολοι δε εν πασι πεπληρομενοι; Serapion +in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: 'ημεις και τον Πετρον και τους αλλους αποστολους +αποδεχομεθα 'ως Χριστον. The success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted +blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with +complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were +able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which +was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great +disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in legal fashion to a new book, +and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assumption +that they were inspired and by the requirement of an "expositio legitima."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote104" name="footnote104"></a><b>Footnote 104:</b><a href="#footnotetag104"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. 15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency +is above all included in the concept "inspiration" (see for ex. Tertull., de +monog. 4: "Negat scriptura quod non notat"), and the same measure of authority +belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. "Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum").</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote105" name="footnote105"></a><b>Footnote 105:</b><a href="#footnotetag105"> (return) </a><p>The direct designation "prophets" was, however, as a rule, avoided. The +conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see Tertullian, +adv. Marc. IV. 24: "Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote106" name="footnote106"></a><b>Footnote 106:</b><a href="#footnotetag106"> (return) </a><p>Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage +about the Shepherd of Hermas.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote107" name="footnote107"></a><b>Footnote 107:</b><a href="#footnotetag107"> (return) </a><p>This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be +formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their +fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could +have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not +that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote108" name="footnote108"></a><b>Footnote 108:</b><a href="#footnotetag108"> (return) </a><p>The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings +were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to +Irenæus and Tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written +by the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on +this point can be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, +Kerygma, and Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a +proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But +these three witnesses agree (see also App. Constit. VI. 16) that the apostolic <i>regula +fidei</i> is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a +writing +is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the apostolic +writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic +<i>regula</i> (de præscr. 37 ff.). The <i>regula</i> of course does not legitimise those +writings, +but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These +witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the +canon merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more +closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led +to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by +the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote109" name="footnote109"></a><b>Footnote 109:</b><a href="#footnotetag109"> (return) </a><p> +The fragment of Serapion's letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the +fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of +the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote110" name="footnote110"></a><b>Footnote 110:</b><a href="#footnotetag110"> (return) </a><p>See my essay "Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T." in the Ztschr. f. +K. Gesch. XI. p. 1 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote111" name="footnote111"></a><b>Footnote 111:</b><a href="#footnotetag111"> (return) </a><p> +The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: 'οθεν διδασκουσιν 'ημας 'αι +'αγιαι γραφαι και παντες 'οι πνευματοφοροι, εξ 'ων Ιωανναες λεγει κ.τ.λ. (follows John +I. 1) +III. 12: και περι δικαιοσυνης, 'ης 'ο νομος ειρηκεν, ακολουθα 'ευρισκεται και +τα των +προφητων και των ευαγγελιων εχειν, δια το τους παντας πνευματοφορους 'ενι πνευματι +θεου λελαληκεναι; III. 13: 'ο 'αγιος λογος—'η ευαγγελιος φωνη.; III. 14: +Ησαιας—το +δε ευαγγελιον—'ο θειος λογος. The latter formula is not a quotation of Epistles of +Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament +and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the +six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the +second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to +the Old Testament it has no authority but the "Gospel."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote112" name="footnote112"></a><b>Footnote 112:</b><a href="#footnotetag112"> (return) </a><p>There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of +Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner's Gesch. d. N. Tlichen +Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual +prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at +least refer to some important passages which I have collected. Strom. I. §§ 28, +100; II. §§ 22, 28, 29; III.,§§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, +130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. §§ 42,44, +54, 59, 61, 66—68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; VII. +§§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate +of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in +Clement, see the Prolegg. to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote113" name="footnote113"></a><b>Footnote 113:</b><a href="#footnotetag113"> (return) </a><p> +According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain +words ενθεως; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See +Pæd. I. 6. 36, also § 51.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote114" name="footnote114"></a><b>Footnote 114:</b><a href="#footnotetag114"> (return) </a><p> +In the Pæd. the Gospels are regularly called 'η γραφη but this is seldom the +case with the Epistles. The word "Apostle" is used in quoting these.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote115" name="footnote115"></a><b>Footnote 115:</b><a href="#footnotetag115"> (return) </a><p>It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere illustrates +the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this +connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never +allegorises passages from other writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in +Pæd. I. 6. 49: το εν τω αποστολω 'αγιον πνευμα τη του κυριου αποχρωμενον φωνη +λεγει. We can hardly conclude from Pæd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a +"prophet."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote116" name="footnote116"></a><b>Footnote 116:</b><a href="#footnotetag116"> (return) </a><p> +It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pæd. II. 10.3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has +criticised an interpretation given by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although +he calls Barnabas an Apostle.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote117" name="footnote117"></a><b>Footnote 117:</b><a href="#footnotetag117"> (return) </a><p>In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is +perhaps used like the κηρυγμα. It is quoted in Pæd. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, +91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97; V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote118" name="footnote118"></a><b>Footnote 118:</b><a href="#footnotetag118"> (return) </a><p>The "seventy disciples" were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of +writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were +likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded +as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as +apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no +reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept +"apostolic" is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache, pp. 111-118.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote119" name="footnote119"></a><b>Footnote 119:</b><a href="#footnotetag119"> (return) </a><p>The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection +with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by +each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of +thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything +certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, +as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement +is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement's "canon of the New Testament" +was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is +already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote120" name="footnote120"></a><b>Footnote 120:</b><a href="#footnotetag120"> (return) </a><p>No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church +than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position +of equal rank with the Old Testament.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote121" name="footnote121"></a><b>Footnote 121:</b><a href="#footnotetag121"> (return) </a><p> +The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely +admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some +of these may be described as tragical. Even when they were not branded as +downright forgeries, the writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards +were far preferred to them.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote122" name="footnote122"></a><b>Footnote 122:</b><a href="#footnotetag122"> (return) </a><p>See on this point Overbeck "Abhandlung über die Anfange der patristischen +Litteratur," l.c., p. 469. Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament +canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as +highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: δεδιως και +εξευλαβουμενος, μη πη δοξω πριν επισυγγραφειν η επιδιατασσεσθαι τω της του +ευαγγελιου καινης διαθηκης λογω. We find similar remarks in other old Catholic +Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote123" name="footnote123"></a><b>Footnote 123:</b><a href="#footnotetag123"> (return) </a><p>But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and +Tertullian, Scorp. II.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote124" name="footnote124"></a><b>Footnote 124:</b><a href="#footnotetag124"> (return) </a><p>On the extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the +New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the +following passage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: "Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui +in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi +non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter +distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote125" name="footnote125"></a><b>Footnote 125:</b><a href="#footnotetag125"> (return) </a><p> +That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly perhaps +in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament +revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New +Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament +had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian +Old Testament with numerous interpolations—tendencies in this direction were not +wanting: see vol. I, p. 114 f.—and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. +The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed +the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote126" name="footnote126"></a><b>Footnote 126:</b><a href="#footnotetag126"> (return) </a><p> +The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the +dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of +necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this +danger. See Tertullian, de præscr. passim, and de resurr. 63.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote127" name="footnote127"></a><b>Footnote 127:</b><a href="#footnotetag127"> (return) </a><p>To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency +to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only +puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of +a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding +principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon +the Bible.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote128" name="footnote128"></a><b>Footnote 128:</b><a href="#footnotetag128"> (return) </a><p>We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenæus and +Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment +that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in +arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could +carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or +else interpreted them by different rules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers +to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed +to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon +of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt +by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal +in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in +the third century, in so far as the term "divine writings" continues to be more +frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote129" name="footnote129"></a><b>Footnote 129:</b><a href="#footnotetag129"> (return) </a><p>Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: "Etiam in +traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote130" name="footnote130"></a><b>Footnote 130:</b><a href="#footnotetag130"> (return) </a><p> +Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883. Harnack, Die Lehre +der zwölf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote131" name="footnote131"></a><b>Footnote 131:</b><a href="#footnotetag131"> (return) </a><p>Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from +traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer +of Marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, +in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against +the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was +proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of +ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest +Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote132" name="footnote132"></a><b>Footnote 132:</b><a href="#footnotetag132"> (return) </a><p>See Tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote133" name="footnote133"></a><b>Footnote 133:</b><a href="#footnotetag133"> (return) </a><p>This theory is maintained by Irenæus and Tertullian, and is as old as the +association of the 'αγια εκκλησια and the πνευμα 'αγιον. Just for that +reason the +distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of +later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. +This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian alone. +Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its +"authority" from that of Rome (de præscr. 36).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote134" name="footnote134"></a><b>Footnote 134:</b><a href="#footnotetag134"> (return) </a><p> +Tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: "Cum autem ad eam iterum +traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis +custoditur, provocamus eos, etc." III. 3. 1: "Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto +mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint +videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis +et successiones eorum usque ad nos ... valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos +volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii +tradentes ... traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata +hominibus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos." III. 3. 4, +4. 1: "Si de aliqua modica qusestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas +recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt ... quid autem si +neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi +traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?" IV. 33. 8: "Character +corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in +unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc." V. 20.1: +"Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt +ecclesias." IV. 26. 2: "Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire +oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione +charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt." IV. 26. 5: "Ubi +igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est +ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio." The declaration in Luke X. 16 was +already applied by Irenæus (III. præf.) to the successors of the Apostles.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote135" name="footnote135"></a><b>Footnote 135:</b><a href="#footnotetag135"> (return) </a><p> +For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As +the <i>regula fidei</i> has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the +New +Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that +the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory +stage in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, +and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions +of these persons devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the +same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter +period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, +was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural +result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference +of the <i>charisma veritatis</i> from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved +the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that +is, the truth of the Church's faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the +authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit +on the Church, which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more +transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it +appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which +can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary +form and speedily disappeared.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote136" name="footnote136"></a><b>Footnote 136:</b><a href="#footnotetag136"> (return) </a><p> This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time +when Irenæus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Irenæus and +which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic +theory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no +monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: "Die +ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischoflichen Chronographie +in Rom." in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of +Science, 1892, p. 617 ff). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so +early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning +of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done, whereas the Roman community, +as early as Soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each +episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent +such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote137" name="footnote137"></a><b>Footnote 137:</b><a href="#footnotetag137"> (return) </a><p>We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian's treatise "de præscr."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote138" name="footnote138"></a><b>Footnote 138:</b><a href="#footnotetag138"> (return) </a><p> +Special importance attaches to Tertullian's treatise "de pudicitia," which has +not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the +pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus +claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their +full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the "doctrina apostolorum" was +inherent in his office, but merely questioned the "potestas apostolorum." It is very +significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as "apostolice" and +reminded him that "ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum." What +rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be +ascertained from Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena +proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that +the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: +Τας 'αιρεσεις 'ετερος ουκ ελεγξει, η το εν εκκλησια παραδοθεν 'αγιον πνευμα, ου +τυχοντες προτεροι 'οι αποστολοι μετεδοσαν τοις ορθως πεπιστευκοσιν 'ων 'ημεις διαδοχοι +τυγχανοντες της τε αυτης χαριτος μετεχοντες αρχιερατειας τε και διδασκαλιας και +φρουροι της εκκλησιας λελογισμενοι ουκ οφθαλμω νυσταζομεν, ουδε λογον ορθον +σιωπωμεν, κ.τ.λ. In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception +of Irenæus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding +theory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased +in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maximinus +Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see also the genuine +Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. 10 [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. +Ratisb.]): "Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut +laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros" +(that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in +the Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that +is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was +very slowly and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six +books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, +which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the +episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as +in Ignatius, who are classed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that +the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of +ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we +have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hierarchical +and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical +officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. These do not at all belong to his +conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the English +orders (cf. Pæd. III. 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; +III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons: VI. 13. 107, +bishops, presbyters, deacons: Quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). On the other +hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. +See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107: εξεστιν ουν και νυν ταις κυριακαις ενασκησαντας +εντολαις κατα το ευαγγελιον τελειως βιωσαντας και γνωστικως εις την εκλογην των +αποστολων εγγραφηναι 'ουτος πρεσβυτερος εστι τω οντι της εκκλησιας και διακονος +αληθης της του θεου βουλησεως. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly +Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy. +Strom VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is the mediator with God. In Strom. VI. +14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: 'ο γνωστικος 'ουτος συνελοντι ειπειν την +αποστολικην απουσιαν ανταναπληροι, κ.τ.λ. Clement could not have expressed himself +in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed +in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in +other Churches of the West (see Bigg l.c. 101). According to Clement the Gnostic +as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West; +and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen +in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in +his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had +become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes +and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. præf. 2: "servetur ecclesiastica +prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad præsens in +ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et +apostolica discordat traditione"—so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: του κανονος +της Ιησου Χριστου κατα διαδοχην τ. αποστολων ουρανιου εκκλησιας). The state of +things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic +<i>regula fidei</i> +and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas +by Origen's time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory +that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural +result. This idea led to the assumption—which, however, was not an immediate +consequence in all cases—that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of +Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: "Manifesta est sententia Iesu +Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam +permittentis, +quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et +credentium fidem baptizantes" (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote139" name="footnote139"></a><b>Footnote 139:</b><a href="#footnotetag139"> (return) </a><p> See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837. +Köstlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung +in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, +1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, +Des Irenäus Lehre von der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, +1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. +Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, +1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Söder, +Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, +Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the +special literature treating of Cyprian's conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote140" name="footnote140"></a><b>Footnote 140:</b><a href="#footnotetag140"> (return) </a><p>See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote141" name="footnote141"></a><b>Footnote 141:</b><a href="#footnotetag141"> (return) </a><p> See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the +Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the Διδαχη.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote142" name="footnote142"></a><b>Footnote 142:</b><a href="#footnotetag142"> (return) </a><p> +This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing +of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by +any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual community, +and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view +the separate communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and +hope. Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad +Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea, as +is expressed in the associating of πνευμα and εκκλησια. But every +individual +community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote143" name="footnote143"></a><b>Footnote 143:</b><a href="#footnotetag143"> (return) </a><p> +The expression "Catholic Church" appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): +'οπου αν φανηι 'ο επισκοπος, εκει το πληθος εστο; 'ωσπερ 'οπου αν η +Χριστος Ιησους, +εκει 'η καθολικη εκκλησια. But in this passage these words do not yet express a +new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. +Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, +<i>i.e.</i>, the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of +the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet "καθολικος" does +not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote144" name="footnote144"></a><b>Footnote 144:</b><a href="#footnotetag144"> (return) </a><p> +The expression "invisible Church" is liable to be misunderstood here, because +it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached +to it in the earliest period.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote145" name="footnote145"></a><b>Footnote 145:</b><a href="#footnotetag145"> (return) </a><p> +It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression "'η 'ενωσις της +εκκλησιας" is first found. In his view the εκκλησια is founded on the +ορθος λογος +transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid +upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the +possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, but in the setting up of a formulated +creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. +The transition to the new conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. +The way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: οικος θεου εκκλησια, +στυλος και 'εδραιωμα της αληθειας.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote146" name="footnote146"></a><b>Footnote 146:</b><a href="#footnotetag146"> (return) </a><p> The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and which was always +associated with it, was that of <i>holiness</i>. See the New Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; +Hermas, +Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trail, inscr.; Theophil. ad +Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, "holy churches"); Apollon. in Euseb, +H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc inscr.; +Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius in Euseb., +VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already referred +by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: εκαλουν την +εκκλησιαν +παρθενον; ουπω γαρ εφθαρτο ακοαις ματαιαις. The unity of the Church according +to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55): see +also Hermas; Justin; Irenæus; Tertullian, de præscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. +17. 107. Even before Irenæus and Tertullian the <i>universality</i> of the Church was +emphasised for apologetic purposes. In so far as universality is a proof of truth, +"universal" is equivalent to "orthodox." This signification is specially clear in +expressions like: 'η εν Σμυρνη καθολικη εκκλησια (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). +From Irenæus, +III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents +"Catholics." The word itself is not yet found in Irenæus, but the idea is there +(see I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H.E. V. 19: πασα 'η εν κοσμω +αδελφοτης). Καθολικος is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible +Church +in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: 'αι κατα παντα τοπον της 'αγιας καθολικης εκκλησιας +παροικιαι; 19. 2; 16. 2 (in all these passages, however, it is probably an interpolation, +as I have shown in the "Expositor" for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f); in the +Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. +in Tertull. frequently, <i>e.g.</i>, de præscr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in +Clem. +Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart. Pionii 2, 9, +13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian. The expression "catholica +traditio" occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2, "fides catholica" in Cyprian ep. 25, +"κανων καθολικος" in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, +"catholica +fides et religio" in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the +word καθολικος occurs in various connections in the following passages: in +fragments +of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon, <i>e.g.</i> in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. +71; +in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag., 27; Theophil. I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, +(καθολ. δοξα); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18 5, Tertull., +de +fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom, IV. 15. 97; VI. 6. 47; 7. 57; 8. 67. +The addition "catholicam" found its way into the symbols of the West only at a +comparatively late period. The earlier expressions for the whole of Christendom are +πασαι 'αι εκκλησιαι, εκκλησιαι κατα πασαν πολιν, εκκλησιαι εν κοσμω, 'αι +'υφ' ουρανου, etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote147" name="footnote147"></a><b>Footnote 147:</b><a href="#footnotetag147"> (return) </a><p> +Very significant is Tertullian's expression in adv. Val. 4: "Valentinus de ecclesia +authenticæ regulæ abrupit," (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman +Church).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote148" name="footnote148"></a><b>Footnote 148:</b><a href="#footnotetag148"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian called the Church <i>mother</i> (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is +called "mother"); see de oral. 2: "ne mater quidem ecclesia pixeterhur," de monog. 7; +adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, 1. 45, had already +done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon +after Tertullian's time: "credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æsternam per +sanctam ecclesiam" (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) On +the other hand Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 16. 146) rejected the designation +of the Church, as "mother": μητηρ δε ουχ, 'ως τινες εκδεδωκασιν, 'η εκκλησια, +αλλ' +'η θεια γνωσις και 'η σοφια (there is a different idea in Pæd. I. 5. 21. and 6. 42: +μητηρ παρθενος; εκκλησιαν εμοι φιλον αυτην καλειν). In the Acta Justini c. 4 +the +faith is named "mother."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote149" name="footnote149"></a><b>Footnote 149:</b><a href="#footnotetag149"> (return) </a><p>Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote150" name="footnote150"></a><b>Footnote 150:</b><a href="#footnotetag150"> (return) </a><p> +The phraseology of Irenæus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks +of Churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical Church. It is already +otherwise with Tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote151" name="footnote151"></a><b>Footnote 151:</b><a href="#footnotetag151"> (return) </a><p> The most important passages bearing on this are II. 31. 3: III. 24. 1 (see +the whole section, but especially: "in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem +spiritus; cuius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam ... ubi +enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia"); +III.11. 8: στυλος και στηριγμα εκκλησιας το ευαγγελιον και πνευμα ζωης: IV. +8. 1: +"semen Abrahæ ecclesia", IV. 8. 3: "omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem;" +IV. 36. 2: "ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum;" +IV. 33. 7: εκκλησια μεγα και ενδοξον σωμα του Χριστου; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. +1.: V. 32.: +V. 34. 3., "Levitae et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote152" name="footnote152"></a><b>Footnote 152:</b><a href="#footnotetag152"> (return) </a><p> +Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic +Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote153" name="footnote153"></a><b>Footnote 153:</b><a href="#footnotetag153"> (return) </a><p> +On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage, +but has weakened its force. The fact that Irenæus was here able to cite +the "antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi +secundum successiones episcoporum," etc., as a second and independent item alongside +of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea +of the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical +institution was already revealing itself in his writings.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote154" name="footnote154"></a><b>Footnote 154:</b><a href="#footnotetag154"> (return) </a><p> The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, +is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On the other hand we find the +ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: "ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus +sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est;" 8: "columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem +dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata;" 15: "unus deus et +unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis;" de pænit. 10: "in uno et altero ecclesia +est, ecclesia vero Christus;" de orat. 28: "nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, +qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;" Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: "differentiam +inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis +consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers +et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici" (the same +idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: +"nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit ... vivit unicus +pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, ... certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati;" +12; de pudic. 21: "nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in +quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam +congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis +qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et +ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, +non ecclesia numerus episcoporum;" de anima 11, 21. Contradictions in detail +need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and +as a Montanist is contradictory.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote155" name="footnote155"></a><b>Footnote 155:</b><a href="#footnotetag155"> (return) </a><p> +The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same position as the Apostles +also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the Church into +the background.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote156" name="footnote156"></a><b>Footnote 156:</b><a href="#footnotetag156"> (return) </a><p> Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which +is the object of faith. See Pæd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: 'ως γαρ θελημα του Θεου +εργον εστι και τουτο κοσμος ονομαζεται, 'ουτω και το βουλημα αυτου ανθρωπων εστι +σωτηρια, και τουτο εκκλησια κεκληται—here an idea which Hermas had in his +mind (see Vol. I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. +II. 12. 55; IV. 8. 66: εικων της ουρανιου εκκλησιας 'η επιγειος, διοπερ +ευχομεθα και +επι γης γενεσθαι το θελημα του Θεου 'ως εν ουρανω; IV. 26. 172: 'η +εκκλησια 'υπο +λογου απολιορκητος ατυραννητος πολις επι γης, θελημα θειον επι γης, 'ως εν +ουρανω; +VI. 13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: 'η ανωτατω εκκλησια, καθ' 'ην 'οι φιλοσοφοι +συναγονται +του Θεου; VII. 5. 29: πως ου κυριος την εις τιμην του Θεου κατ' επιγνωσιν +'αγιαν γενομενην εκκλησιαν 'ιερον αν ειποιμεν Θεου το πολλου αξιον ... ου γαρ νυν +τον τοπον, αλλα το αθροισμα των εκλεκτων εκκλησιαν καλω; VII. 6. 32; VII. 11. 68: +'η πνευματικη εκκλησια. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly +formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: +φανερον οιμαι γεγενησθαι μιαν ειναι την αληθη εκκλησιαν την τωι οντι +αρχαιαν, +εις 'ην 'οι κατα προθεσιν δικαιοι εγκαταλεγονται, 'ενος γαρ οντος του Θεου και 'ενος +του κυριου ... τη γουν του 'ενος φυσει συνκληρουνται εκκλησια 'η μια, 'ην εις +πολλας +κατατεμνειν βιαζονται 'αιρεσεις.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote157" name="footnote157"></a><b>Footnote 157:</b><a href="#footnotetag157"> (return) </a><p> +It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim has fallen into the +background in Clement's conception of the Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote158" name="footnote158"></a><b>Footnote 158:</b><a href="#footnotetag158"> (return) </a><p> +A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the +earthly Church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards +became so important in the East, was turned to no further account by +Clement. In his view the "Gnostics" are the highest stage in the Church. See +Bigg, l.c., p. 100.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote159" name="footnote159"></a><b>Footnote 159:</b><a href="#footnotetag159"> (return) </a><p> +De princip. IV. 2, 2: 'η ουρανιος εκκλησια; Hom. IX. in Exod. c. 3: "ecclesia +credentium plebs;" Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5; Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: "omni +ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.": T. XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. +VI. 48: VI. 79; Hom. VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished +('ωστε ειναι επι των 'αγιων συναθροιζομενων διπλην εκκλησιαν την μεν ανθρωπων, +την δε +αγγελων). Nevertheless Origen does not assume two Churches, but, like Clement, +holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and +part still on earth. But it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy +are already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old +speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2 Clem. XIV.). +Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on +Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve with the Church, and remarks that +Pamphilus' apology for Origen stated that this allegory was not new: ου πρωτον +Ωριγενην επι ταυτην την πραγματειαν ελθειν φασιν, αλλα την της εκκλησιας μυστικην +'ερμηνευσαι παραδοσιν. A great many more of these speculations are to be +found in the 3rd century. See, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>the Acts of Peter and Paul</i> 29.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote160" name="footnote160"></a><b>Footnote 160:</b><a href="#footnotetag160"> (return) </a><p> De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: "nemo tibi persuadeat, nemo +semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur." The reference is to the +Catholic Church which Origen also calls το 'ολον σωμα των συναγωγων της +εκκλησιας.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote161" name="footnote161"></a><b>Footnote 161:</b><a href="#footnotetag161"> (return) </a><p> Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the "city of God" (see also pseudo-Cyprian's +tractate "de pascha computus"); but for him it lies in Heaven and is the complete +contrast of the world. The idea of Plato here referred to is to be found in his +<i>Republic</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote162" name="footnote162"></a><b>Footnote 162:</b><a href="#footnotetag162"> (return) </a><p>See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote163" name="footnote163"></a><b>Footnote 163:</b><a href="#footnotetag163"> (return) </a><p>Comment. in Joh. VI. 38.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote164" name="footnote164"></a><b>Footnote 164:</b><a href="#footnotetag164"> (return) </a><p> +Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the οχλος της εκκλησιας +(the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in +the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote165" name="footnote165"></a><b>Footnote 165:</b><a href="#footnotetag165"> (return) </a><p> +Origen, who is Augustine's equal in other respects also, and who anticipated +many of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Father's +view of the City of God—of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f). The Church is also +viewed as το κατα Θεον πολιτευμα in Euseb., H. E. V. Præf. § 4, and at an +earlier +period in Clement.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote166" name="footnote166"></a><b>Footnote 166:</b><a href="#footnotetag166"> (return) </a><p> This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work "de principiis" +we find no section devoted to the Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote167" name="footnote167"></a><b>Footnote 167:</b><a href="#footnotetag167"> (return) </a><p> +It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that the mistake consisted in +this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be +found in the development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its +secularisation. No one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion +would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly +than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote168" name="footnote168"></a><b>Footnote 168:</b><a href="#footnotetag168"> (return) </a><p> +Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule +of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and that in other things there +must be freedom (see above all Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist +writings). It is all the more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in +which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive +of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop +of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance +of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the Church and treated nonconformists +as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H. E. V. 24). On the other hand +Irenæus says: 'η διαφωνια της νηστειας την 'ομονοιαν της πιστεως συνιστησι.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote169" name="footnote169"></a><b>Footnote 169:</b><a href="#footnotetag169"> (return) </a><p>On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. I2; and Tertull., de pudic.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote170" name="footnote170"></a><b>Footnote 170:</b><a href="#footnotetag170"> (return) </a><p>See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also Hippol., l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote171" name="footnote171"></a><b>Footnote 171:</b><a href="#footnotetag171"> (return) </a><p> Cyprian's idea of the Church, an imitation of the conception of a political +empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the +result of the conflicts through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a +complete form in the treatise "de unitate ecclesiæ" and, above all, in his later +epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines the Church +as "constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus" date from an +earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. +Moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. The +limitation of the Church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the +Novatian crisis. The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from +the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox Christians +had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting +up of a new theory of the Church, which therefore resulted from stress of circumstances +just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenæus. +Cyprian's notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate +may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the +connection between the individual community and the bishop. This already contained +an œcumenical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a +copy of the one Church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of God (Christ).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote172" name="footnote172"></a><b>Footnote 172:</b><a href="#footnotetag172"> (return) </a><p> We need only quote one passage here—but see also epp. 69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: +73. 8—ep. 55. 24: "Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo +in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris doceat; quisquis ille +est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est." In the +famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): "habere non potest deum patrem qui +ecclesiam non habet matrem," we must understand the Church held together by +the <i>sacramentum unitatis</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, by her constitution. Cyprian is fond of +referring +to Korah's faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote173" name="footnote173"></a><b>Footnote 173:</b><a href="#footnotetag173"> (return) </a><p> +Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: "ecclesia super episcopos constituta;" 43. 5: 45. 3: "unitatem +a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam;" 46. 1: 66. 8: "scire debes +episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit +in ecclesia non esse;" de unit. 4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote174" name="footnote174"></a><b>Footnote 174:</b><a href="#footnotetag174"> (return) </a><p> +According to Cyprian the bishops are the <i>sacerdotes</i> κατ' εκσοχην and the +<i>iudices vice Christi</i>. See epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: "Christus dicit ad +apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: +qui audit vos me audit." Ep. 3. 3: "dominus apostolos, <i>i.e.</i>, episcopos +elegit"; ep. 75. 16.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote175" name="footnote175"></a><b>Footnote 175:</b><a href="#footnotetag175"> (return) </a><p> +That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise +"de unitate." The heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the +Church is the product of love, this being the main Christian virtue. That is the +<i>ideal</i> thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. +1 +and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and +preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early Christian notion +that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. But this love +ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the +authority of the bishop and to Christians of the sterner sort. The appeal which +Catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised +and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into +hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian's stamp.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote176" name="footnote176"></a><b>Footnote 176:</b><a href="#footnotetag176"> (return) </a><p> +Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: "episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate +diffusus;" de unit. 5: "episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum +pars tenetur." Strictly speaking Cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops +were directed by the Holy Spirit, but in identifying Apostles and bishops and +asserting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special +endowment with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to +special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in discharging his +official duties.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote177" name="footnote177"></a><b>Footnote 177:</b><a href="#footnotetag177"> (return) </a><p> Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice as a matter of +moment—or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. In so far as the +<i>concordia episcoporum</i> was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with +the differences, provided the <i>regula fidei</i> was adhered to. Every bishop who +adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church +discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. +14: "Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et +gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus;" 55. 21: "Et quidem apud antecessores +nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis moechis +non putaverunt et in totum pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen +a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem +ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia +separaretur." According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the strict +practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the Church, +are left to the judgment of God. It is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, +for Marcion had formally joined Novatian. Even in the disputed question of +heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 73. 26; +<i>Sententiæ episc.</i>, præfat.): "qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem +damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum +unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus." It is therefore +plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church actually consists; we +may say that it is found in the <i>regula</i>, in the fixed purpose not to give up the +unity +in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulating all the affairs of the +Church "ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem" +(ep. 74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically insisted +on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the guide, "si in +aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas;" by it, moreover, all false customs +are to be corrected. In the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of +Church practice in Carthage and Africa, which was the point in question—for +whilst in Asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid +(see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years—was +justified by Cyprian through an appeal to <i>veritas</i> in contrast to <i>consuetudo +sine veritate</i>. +See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with +Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The <i>veritas</i>, however, is to be learned from the +Gospel and words of the Apostles: "Lex evangelii," "præcepta dominica," and +synonymous expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference +to the <i>regula</i> or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church dogmatic, there +being only principles of Christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from +the Holy Scriptures and the <i>regula</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote178" name="footnote178"></a><b>Footnote 178:</b><a href="#footnotetag178"> (return) </a><p> +Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles, +and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote179" name="footnote179"></a><b>Footnote 179:</b><a href="#footnotetag179"> (return) </a><p> The statement that the Church is "super Petrum fundata" is very frequently +made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu +virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73. 7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. +he went still farther; see ep. 43. 5: "deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia +et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata;" ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): "communicatio +tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas;" de unit. 4: "superunum +ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam +parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem +ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit;" ep. 70. 3: "una ecclesia a Christo +domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata" ("with regard to the +origin and constitution of the unity" is the translation of this last passage in the +"Stimmen aus Maria Laach," 1877, part 8, p. 355; but "ratio" cannot mean that); +ep. 73. 7; "Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis +originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit." The most emphatic passages +are ep. 48. 3, where the Roman Church is called "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" +(the expression "radix et mater" in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her), +and ep. 59. 14: "navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, +unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre +nec cogitare eos esse Romanes, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see +epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum." We can see +most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of fact exercised +by the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naively, even at the time +when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), "quoniam <i>pro magnitudine +sua</i> debeat Carthaginem Roma præcedere." In the controversy about heretical +baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. 1) designated himself, on the +ground of the <i>successio Petri</i> and by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that +one might suppose he wished to be regarded as "episcopus episcoporum" (Sentent. +episc. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience +from the "ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ" (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to +enforce the Roman practice "tyrannico terrore" and insisted that the <i>unitas +ecclesiæ</i> +required the observance of this Church's practice in all communities. But Cyprian +opposed him in the most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every +bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the <i>regula</i> and the +Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to God alone. This he did in a +way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the Roman see +alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by +Stephen from the admittedly historical position of the Roman see (ep. 71. 3): "Petrus +non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum +tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." Firmilian, +ep. 75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the <i>successio Petri</i> +claimed +by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the Roman Church +has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, +l.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took +up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman +see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he had expressed at a critical +time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop Cornelius.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote180" name="footnote180"></a><b>Footnote 180:</b><a href="#footnotetag180"> (return) </a><p>See specially epp. 65, 67, 68.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote181" name="footnote181"></a><b>Footnote 181:</b><a href="#footnotetag181"> (return) </a><p>Hatch l.c., p. 189 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote182" name="footnote182"></a><b>Footnote 182:</b><a href="#footnotetag182"> (return) </a><p> The gradual union of the provincial communities into one Church may be +studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical Fasti (records, martyrologies, +calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De +Rossi, Roma Sotter, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi +in Italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887 +(Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol. Hieron. Rome +1885, but above all the latter's study: Mémoire sur l'origine des diocèses épiscopaux +dans l'ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the +4th century should also be studied.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote183" name="footnote183"></a><b>Footnote 183:</b><a href="#footnotetag183"> (return) </a><p> There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be +proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with +it in point of belief (see the interesting case in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, +there were Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond +with the Catholic <i>regula</i> as already expounded. But the fact that it was +not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and principles of the Church, +as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was +undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits +of the Christian <i>kerygma</i> can only separate. Here, however, all differences of faith +had of couise to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: +μη δειν 'ολως εξεταζειν +τον λογον, αλλ' εκαστον. 'ως πεπιστευκε, διαμενειν σωθησεσθαι γαρ τους επι +τον 'εσταυρωμενον ηλπικοτας, κ.τ.λ., was naturally regarded as inadmissible.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote184" name="footnote184"></a><b>Footnote 184:</b><a href="#footnotetag184"> (return) </a><p> +Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose +in the Church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice +and harshness could not possibly be surpassed in succeeding times. The best +definition is in Tertull., de præscr. 6: "Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, +sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus +auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed +acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote185" name="footnote185"></a><b>Footnote 185:</b><a href="#footnotetag185"> (return) </a><p>See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote186" name="footnote186"></a><b>Footnote 186:</b><a href="#footnotetag186"> (return) </a><p> We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: "Hæretici nullum +habent consortium nostra discipline, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio +communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia +non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus +unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, +nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent." +Cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the Novatians, and +like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. This question agitated +the Church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote +against it in Greek.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote187" name="footnote187"></a><b>Footnote 187:</b><a href="#footnotetag187"> (return) </a><p> As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as +hypocrisy and love of ostentation (see <i>e.g.</i>, Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and +others in the second century). If this view was untenable, then all morality and +heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. See the anonymous +writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 16. 21, 22; Clem, Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. +ad Rom. I. X., c. 5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; cp. 73. 21 etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote188" name="footnote188"></a><b>Footnote 188:</b><a href="#footnotetag188"> (return) </a><p>Tertull., de præscr. 3-6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote189" name="footnote189"></a><b>Footnote 189:</b><a href="#footnotetag189"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. 11. 9: +IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, "qui gloriosum corpus +Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque +utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ." Note the parallel +with Cyprian. Yet he does not class them with those "qui sunt extra veritatem," +<i>i.e.</i>, "extra ecclesiam," although he declares the severest penalties await them. +Tertullian +was completely preserved by his Montanism from identifying heretics and +schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the +Christianity of the Catholics (?).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote190" name="footnote190"></a><b>Footnote 190:</b><a href="#footnotetag190"> (return) </a><p> +Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents +of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv. Prax.; Hippol., c. Noët; Novatian, +de trinitate. Even in the case of the Novatians heresies were sought and found +(see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb., H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked +misinterpretations of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even +Cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). +The Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolylus in the catalogue of heretics +(see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether to reckon them +among schismatics or heretics (see in Tit. Opp. IV., p. 696).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote191" name="footnote191"></a><b>Footnote 191:</b><a href="#footnotetag191"> (return) </a><p> Cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): "hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus +adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant" (as to +the early history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see +Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.; Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., +adv. Valent. 4; de bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. +Epiphan. H. 42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian +it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: "neque enim aliunde hæreses +obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur;" +epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: "item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma +discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit"; 52. 1: 73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and +heresy are always identical.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote192" name="footnote192"></a><b>Footnote 192:</b><a href="#footnotetag192"> (return) </a><p> +Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian's theory as the starting-point of +their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic +and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled by his special circumstances to identify +them, but he united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to +the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did +not make a single new article an "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ." In fact +he ultimately declared—and this may have cost him struggle enough—that even +the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.</p></blockquote> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page94" id="page94"></a>[pg 94]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="CHAP_III" id="CHAP_III"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH.</h3> + + +<p>1. The legal and political forms by which the Church secured +herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more +the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence +of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, +called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second +century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor +and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at +preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and +preventing Christendom from being secularised. This crisis +(the so called Montanist struggle) and the kindred one which +succeeded produced the following results: The Church merely +regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community +basing the truth of its title on its historic and objective +foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation to +the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised +two distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as +well as a double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced +her character as the communion of those who were sure of +salvation, and substituted the claim to be an educational institution +and a necessary condition of redemption. After a keen +struggle, in which the New Testament did excellent service to +the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian fanatics and +the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); +and in the same way, during the course of the third century, +she caused the secession of all those Christians who made the +truth of the Church depend on a stricter administration of moral +discipline. Hence, apart from the heretic and Montanist sects, +there existed in the Empire, after the middle of the second +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page95" id="page95"></a>[pg 95]</span> +century, two great but numerically unequal Church confederations, +both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the +title "ecclesia catholica," viz., the confederation which Constantine +afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist +one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption +goes back to the time of Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the +schism of Novatian must not be considered as an immediate +continuation of that of Hippolytus.</p> + +<p>2. The so-called Montanist reaction<a id="footnotetag193" name="footnotetag193"></a><a href="#footnote193"><sup>193</sup></a> was itself subjected to +a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical +development of Christendom. It was originally the violent +undertaking of a Christian prophet, Montanus, who, supported +by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held +forth in the Fourth Gospel. He explained these by the Apocalypse, +and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom +Christ had promised—that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ himself, +nay, even God the Father Almighty, comes to his own +to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, +and to bring them into one flock. His main effort therefore +was to make Christians give up the local and civil relations +in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided +Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should +prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above.<a id="footnotetag194" name="footnotetag194"></a><a href="#footnote194"><sup>194</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page96" id="page96"></a>[pg 96]</span> + +<p>The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this +extravagant message—especially by the leaders of communities, +and the persecutions to which the Church was soon after subjected +under Marcus Aurelius, led to an intensifying of the +eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially +keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the New +Jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, +and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, +had been chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.<a id="footnotetag195" name="footnotetag195"></a><a href="#footnote195"><sup>195</sup></a> Whatever +amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal +of an assembly of all Christians proved incapable of being +realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was +abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century +by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in +Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer +resistance to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to +assume a secular and political character. Many entire communities +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page97" id="page97"></a>[pg 97]</span> +in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the +prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies +were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were +circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time +they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at +Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement +in Asia. The bishop of Rome was on the verge of +acknowledging the Montanists to be in full communion with +the Church. But among themselves there was no longer, as at +the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict +sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian +society.<a id="footnotetag196" name="footnotetag196"></a><a href="#footnote196"><sup>196</sup></a> Whenever Montanism comes before us in the clear +light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already +deadened, though still very powerful. Montanus and his prophetesses +had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as +yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained +them.<a id="footnotetag197" name="footnotetag197"></a><a href="#footnote197"><sup>197</sup></a> The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had +appeared in them and spoke through them.<a id="footnotetag198" name="footnotetag198"></a><a href="#footnote198"><sup>198</sup></a> Imagination pictured +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page98" id="page98"></a>[pg 98]</span> +Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.<a id="footnotetag199" name="footnotetag199"></a><a href="#footnote199"><sup>199</sup></a> +The most extravagant promises were given.<a id="footnotetag200" name="footnotetag200"></a><a href="#footnote200"><sup>200</sup></a> These prophets +spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they +were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations.<a id="footnotetag201" name="footnotetag201"></a><a href="#footnote201"><sup>201</sup></a> They +set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of +any tradition,<a id="footnotetag202" name="footnotetag202"></a><a href="#footnote202"><sup>202</sup></a> and they inveighed against the main body of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page99" id="page99"></a>[pg 99]</span> +Christendom.<a id="footnotetag203" name="footnotetag203"></a><a href="#footnote203"><sup>203</sup></a> They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, +but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was +first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.<a id="footnotetag204" name="footnotetag204"></a><a href="#footnote204"><sup>204</sup></a> +These Christians as yet knew nothing of the "absoluteness of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page100" id="page100"></a>[pg 100]</span> +a historically complete revelation of Christ as the fundamental +condition of Christian consciousness;" they only felt a Spirit +to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. But, +after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and +found a kind of compromise. The Montanist congregations that +sought for recognition in Rome, whose part was taken by the +Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in +North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the +original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets +themselves, as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive +Anabaptists and their empire in Münster. The "Montanists" +outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the +legal position of the great Church. They declared their adherence +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page101" id="page101"></a>[pg 101]</span> +to the apostolic "regula" and the New Testament canon.<a id="footnotetag205" name="footnotetag205"></a><a href="#footnote205"><sup>205</sup></a> +The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position +of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of +doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between +them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were +unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of +Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its +final form, in written records and in this shape may have produced +the same impression as is excited by the fragments of +an exploded bomb.<a id="footnotetag206" name="footnotetag206"></a><a href="#footnote206"><sup>206</sup></a></p> + +<p>In this new prophecy they recognised a <i>subsequent revelation</i> +of God, which for that very reason assumed the existence of a +previous one. This after-revelation professed to decide the +practical questions which, at the end of the second century, +were burning topics throughout all Christendom, and for which +no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of +a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance of the new +prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason +they believed in it.<a id="footnotetag207" name="footnotetag207"></a><a href="#footnote207"><sup>207</sup></a> The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page102" id="page102"></a>[pg 102]</span> +who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard +of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few +decades before, for several years given his revelations in a +remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original +enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to +the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained +was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation +between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had +made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new +prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, +on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger +manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and +customs, and finally on the full resolve not to avoid suffering +and martyrdom for Christ's name's sake, but to bear them +willingly and joyfully,<a id="footnotetag208" name="footnotetag208"></a><a href="#footnote208"><sup>208</sup></a> yet, under the given circumstances, +these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything +"Encratite,"<a id="footnotetag209" name="footnotetag209"></a><a href="#footnote209"><sup>209</sup></a> implied a demand that directly endangered +the conquests already made by the Church and impeded +the progress of the new propaganda.<a id="footnotetag210" name="footnotetag210"></a><a href="#footnote210"><sup>210</sup></a> The people who put +forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions +of the Paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, +were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in +the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page103" id="page103"></a>[pg 103]</span> +on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as +strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent +the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the +programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail +that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by +the Paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the +new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;<a id="footnotetag211" name="footnotetag211"></a><a href="#footnote211"><sup>211</sup></a> +that they showed all honour to the New Testament; and that +they did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted +in it.<a id="footnotetag212" name="footnotetag212"></a><a href="#footnote212"><sup>212</sup></a> As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page104" id="page104"></a>[pg 104]</span> +but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side +could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. +Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a +schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations +in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax +Christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, +viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfortably +by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought +to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient +monitors;<a id="footnotetag213" name="footnotetag213"></a><a href="#footnote213"><sup>213</sup></a> and they could only do so by reproaching the latter +with heresy and unchristian assumptions. Moreover, the followers +of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the +Churches of the "Psychical,"<a id="footnotetag214" name="footnotetag214"></a><a href="#footnote214"><sup>214</sup></a> which rejected the "Spirit" and +extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers +and adulterers within their pale.</p> + +<p>In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the +Montanists and the Church had in all probability broken out +before the question of Church discipline and the right of the +bishops had yet been clearly raised. In Rome and Carthage +this question completed the rupture that had already taken +place between the conventicles and the Church (de pudic. 1. 21). +Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed the +right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared +that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of +repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page105" id="page105"></a>[pg 105]</span> +violently contested both in an abstract sense and in this application +of it. The Spirit the Apostles had received, they said, +could not be transmitted; the Spirit is given to the Church; +he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure +in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly refused +to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the +grace of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; +"potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam"). Thus agreement +was no longer possible. The bishops were determined +to assert the existing claims of the Church, even at the cost +of her Christian character, or to represent the constitution of +the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that character. At the +risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist sects resisted +in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for +a Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack +on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence +awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when +the clergy had possessed no importance.<a id="footnotetag215" name="footnotetag215"></a><a href="#footnote215"><sup>215</sup></a> But the ultimate +motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the +Christian life and to preserve the virginity of the Church as a +holy community.<a id="footnotetag216" name="footnotetag216"></a><a href="#footnote216"><sup>216</sup></a> In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page106" id="page106"></a>[pg 106]</span> +defended a position already lost, and carried with him to the +grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the Church.</p> + +<p>Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though +not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,<a id="footnotetag217" name="footnotetag217"></a><a href="#footnote217"><sup>217</sup></a> +the Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. +The great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult +position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up +to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically +disputed. The problem was how to carry on with caution +the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at the +same time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, +was opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops +therefore assailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground +of innovation;<a id="footnotetag218" name="footnotetag218"></a><a href="#footnote218"><sup>218</sup></a> they sought to throw suspicion on its content; +in some cases even Chiliasm, as represented by the Montanists, +was declared to have a Jewish and fleshly character.<a id="footnotetag219" name="footnotetag219"></a><a href="#footnote219"><sup>219</sup></a> They +tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were +extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the +Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the +worship of Apis, Isis, and the mother of the Gods.<a id="footnotetag220" name="footnotetag220"></a><a href="#footnote220"><sup>220</sup></a> To the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page107" id="page107"></a>[pg 107]</span> +claim of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God, +set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly +formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christians +was contained in the utterances of the Old Testament +prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to distinguish +between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and +a different one applying to the laity,<a id="footnotetag221" name="footnotetag221"></a><a href="#footnote221"><sup>221</sup></a> as, for instance, in the +question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased +emphasis on the glory of the heroic Christians, <i>belonging to the +great Church</i>, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism +and joyful submission to martyrdom. By these methods they +brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the +whole Church, but was now of no further service. In repudiating +supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard +felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the +so-called Chiliasm,<a id="footnotetag222" name="footnotetag222"></a><a href="#footnote222"><sup>222</sup></a> congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence +of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely +rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened +(though subject to limitations<a id="footnotetag223" name="footnotetag223"></a><a href="#footnote223"><sup>223</sup></a>) in the West and +certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force +so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.<a id="footnotetag224" name="footnotetag224"></a><a href="#footnote224"><sup>224</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page108" id="page108"></a>[pg 108]</span> +However, the most effective means of legitimising the present +state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely connected +with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings, +viz., the distinction of an <i>epoch of revelation</i>, along with +a corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable +by later generations. This period was connected with the present +by means of the New Testament and the apostolic office +of the bishops. This later time was to regard the older period +as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same +perfection, except at least through the medium of the Holy +Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church. The +place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst +was taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the "instrument +of divine literature" ("instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ") +and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor +that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of +the Christian philosophers, which attained importance in the +Church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her +conscience with an objective possession.</p> + +<p>3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation +of the Church in the world and the transformation of +a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page109" id="page109"></a>[pg 109]</span> +salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from +Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third +century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his +guilt<a id="footnotetag225" name="footnotetag225"></a><a href="#footnote225"><sup>225</sup></a> by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd. +in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the Church was +still the penalty of relapse into idolatry, adultery, whoredom, +and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of God +in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they +remained penitent to the end. In <i>theory</i> indeed this rule was +not very old. For the oldest period possessed no theories; +and in those days Christians frequently broke through what +might have been counted as one by appealing to the Spirit, +who, by special announcements—particularly by the mouth of +martyrs and prophets—commanded or sanctioned the readmission +of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).<a id="footnotetag226" name="footnotetag226"></a><a href="#footnote226"><sup>226</sup></a> Still, +the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom +is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony <i>invariably</i> +capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, +and that God alone can forgive sins. The practice must on +the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the +latter half of the second century it became an established +custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be +made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition +of public confession.<a id="footnotetag227" name="footnotetag227"></a><a href="#footnote227"><sup>227</sup></a> For this, appeal was probably made +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page110" id="page110"></a>[pg 110]</span> +to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service +he here unwittingly rendered. We say "unwittingly," for he +could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, +though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his attitude. +In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something +closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed +(de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of <i>two</i> planks of salvation.<a id="footnotetag228" name="footnotetag228"></a><a href="#footnote228"><sup>228</sup></a> +Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision +as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently +attended with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not +arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, +in conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to +abandon the old idea that Christendom was a community of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page111" id="page111"></a>[pg 111]</span> +saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, +adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church, +in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there +was a boundary line dividing her from the world.</p> + +<p>This state of matters continued till about 220.<a id="footnotetag229" name="footnotetag229"></a><a href="#footnote229"><sup>229</sup></a> In reality +the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop +Calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, +granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the +flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a +right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, +that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the keys.<a id="footnotetag230" name="footnotetag230"></a><a href="#footnote230"><sup>230</sup></a> +At Rome this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippolytus. +But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard +to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was +not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no +further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no +concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.<a id="footnotetag231" name="footnotetag231"></a><a href="#footnote231"><sup>231</sup></a> +These were first occasioned by the Decian persecution, since +in many towns those who had abjured Christianity were more +numerous than those who adhered to it.<a id="footnotetag232" name="footnotetag232"></a><a href="#footnote232"><sup>232</sup></a> The majority of the +bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.<a id="footnotetag233" name="footnotetag233"></a><a href="#footnote233"><sup>233</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page112" id="page112"></a>[pg 112]</span> +To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant +apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made between +<i>sacrificati</i> and <i>libellatici</i>, the latter being more mildly +treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded +under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic +proceeding was adopted in regard to the laity, and strict +measures—though this was not the universal rule—were only +adopted towards the clergy. In consequence of this innovation, +which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief +that there can be only one repentance after baptism—an assumption +that was untenable in principle—Novatian's schism took +place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in +cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed +the stricter practice down to the fifth century.<a id="footnotetag234" name="footnotetag234"></a><a href="#footnote234"><sup>234</sup></a> What made +it difficult to introduce this change by regular legislation was +the authority to forgive sins in God's stead, ascribed in primitive +times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in +virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep. +Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de pudic. 22). +The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian +persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of "spiritual" +persons other than the bishops. These confessors had +frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider +the measure of secularisation found among the great mass of +Christians, the penitential discipline insisted on by the bishops +is remarkable for its comparative severity. The complete adoption +of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction +of the unlimited right to forgive sins.<a id="footnotetag235" name="footnotetag235"></a><a href="#footnote235"><sup>235</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page113" id="page113"></a>[pg 113]</span> + +<p>4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to +salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. +According to the older notion the Church was the sure communion +of salvation and of saints, which rested on the forgiveness +of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. +It is not the Church, but God alone, that forgives sins, +and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, +in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special +proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, +after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross sinners, it +would anticipate the judgment of God, as it would thereby assure +them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have +been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed +against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing +the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.<a id="footnotetag236" name="footnotetag236"></a><a href="#footnote236"><sup>236</sup></a> But +in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God's +grace became weaker and trust in the Church stronger. He +whom the Church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore +she must not abandon him. This state of things was expressed +in the new interpretation of the proposition, "no salvation outside +the Church" ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), viz., <i>the +Church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain</i>. +In this conception the nature of the Church is depotentiated, +but her powers are extended. If she is the institution which, +according to Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition +of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; +in other words, she becomes an institution from which proceeds +the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. +Thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page114" id="page114"></a>[pg 114]</span> +medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual +the <i>possibility</i> of redemption. From this, however, it immediately +follows that the Church would anticipate the judgment +of God if she finally excluded anyone from her membership +who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could +never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.<a id="footnotetag237" name="footnotetag237"></a><a href="#footnote237"><sup>237</sup></a> +But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of +repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with +baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With +this she acts in God's name and stead, but—and herein lies the +inconsistency—she cannot by this means establish any final +condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner +she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in +fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. In accordance +with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely +consist in her possession of the means of salvation: <i>the Church +is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is +endowed</i>. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation +and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ's room. +Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both +necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. +(In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his +adversary by the saying, "ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.") +This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church +and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11).</p> + +<p>The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary +outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark, +was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by +Roman bishops,<a id="footnotetag238" name="footnotetag238"></a><a href="#footnote238"><sup>238</sup></a> was the first thing that gave a fundamental +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page115" id="page115"></a>[pg 115]</span> +<i>religious</i> significance to the separation of clergy and laity. The +powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed +and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave +laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still +continued in the third century, but it became more and more +a mere form. The bishop became the practical vicegerent of +Christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. But +the recollection of the older form of Christianity continued to +exert an influence on the Catholic Church of the third century. +It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus' account, Calixtus +had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch +as he not only defined the Church as <i>essentially a mixed +body</i> (<i>corpus permixtum</i>), but also asserted the unlawfulness of +deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.<a id="footnotetag239" name="footnotetag239"></a><a href="#footnote239"><sup>239</sup></a> But we do +not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, +he still required a definite degree of active Christianity +as a <i>sine quâ non</i> in the case of bishops; and assumed it as +a self-evident necessity. He who does not give evidence of this +forfeits his episcopal office <i>ipso facto</i>.<a id="footnotetag240" name="footnotetag240"></a><a href="#footnote240"><sup>240</sup></a> Now if we consider +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page116" id="page116"></a>[pg 116]</span> +that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (<i>plebs +credentium</i>), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are +the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question +denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church +in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But +for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point +of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop +are invalid;<a id="footnotetag241" name="footnotetag241"></a><a href="#footnote241"><sup>241</sup></a> and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no +longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system +ceases. Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God's installing +the bishops and always appointing the right ones<a id="footnotetag242" name="footnotetag242"></a><a href="#footnote242"><sup>242</sup></a> is of no +avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian's +idea of the Church—and this is no dishonour to him—still involved +an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined +to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.<a id="footnotetag243" name="footnotetag243"></a><a href="#footnote243"><sup>243</sup></a> +The view, however—which Cyprian never openly expressed, +and which was merely the natural inference from his theory—that +the Catholic Church, though the "one dove" ("una columba"), +is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect, +was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before +him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and +fleshly members of the Church; and spoke of such as only belong +to her outwardly, but are not Christians. As these are +finally overpowered by the gates of hell, Origen does not hesitate +to class them as merely seeming members of the Church. +Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being +expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page117" id="page117"></a>[pg 117]</span> +the eyes of God.<a id="footnotetag244" name="footnotetag244"></a><a href="#footnote244"><sup>244</sup></a> Nevertheless he by no means attained to +clearness on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have +been the first to do so; nor did he give an impulse to further +reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations were of no +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page118" id="page118"></a>[pg 118]</span> +use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and +gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom +corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed +in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.<a id="footnotetag245" name="footnotetag245"></a><a href="#footnote245"><sup>245</sup></a></p> + +<p>But a minority struggled against this Church, not with +speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with +regard to lapsed members. Under the leadership of the Roman +presbyter, Novatian, this section formed a coalition in the +Empire that opposed the Catholic confederation.<a id="footnotetag246" name="footnotetag246"></a><a href="#footnote246"><sup>246</sup></a> Their adherence +to the old system of Church discipline involved a reaction +against the secularising process, which did not seem to +be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. Novatian's +conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the +rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of +the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear +from a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) +assigned to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross +sinners once for all;<a id="footnotetag247" name="footnotetag247"></a><a href="#footnote247"><sup>247</sup></a> he denied her the authority to absolve +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page119" id="page119"></a>[pg 119]</span> +idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of God who alone +has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; +and he asserted: "non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria +habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem +de domini dignatione mercedem,"—"the absolution of the bishop +is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory +(<i>i.e.</i>, martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the +approbation of the Lord" (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other +hand taught: "peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam +delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,"—"the one is defiled +by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor +passes over to him who does not transgress." His proposition +that none but God can forgive sins does not depotentiate the +idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance +and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits +her powers and <i>extent</i> in favour of her <i>content</i>. Refusal of her +forgiveness under certain circumstances—though this does not +exclude the confident hope of God's mercy—can only mean +that in Novatian's view this forgiveness is the foundation of +salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. +To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the +<i>sine quâ non</i> of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. +In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not anticipate the +judgment of God. Now it is never by exclusion, but by +readmission, that she does so. As the assembly of the baptised, +who have received God's forgiveness, the Church must be a +real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot +endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. +Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy +in question. But, from this point of view, the constitution +of the Church, <i>i.e.</i>, the distinction of lay and spiritual and the +authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the +secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to +those principles, the primary question as regards Church membership +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page120" id="page120"></a>[pg 120]</span> +is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather +connection with the community, fellowship with which secures +the salvation that may indeed be found outside its pale, but +not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the +importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching +in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and +the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. +The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the +idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not +become clear to the latter himself. This was because, in regard +to the idea of the Church, he partly overlooked the inferences +from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated +them. An attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case +is found in ep. 69. 7: "We and the schismatics have neither the +same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when +they say: 'you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life +through the holy Church,' they speak falsely" ("non est una +nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; +nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam +æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur"). Nor did Dionysius +of Alexandria, who endeavoured to accumulate reproaches +against Novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation +(Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian had just as little success +(ad Novatianum).</p> + +<p>It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic +Church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that +the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable +plainness. The historical estimate of the contrast must vary +in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive +Christianity or the requirements of the time. The Novatian +confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the +old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of +salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints (Καθαροι) corresponds +to the ideas of the earliest period. The followers of +Novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious +attributes of the Church; they neither transformed the gifts of +salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with +the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page121" id="page121"></a>[pg 121]</span> +the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in +view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim <i>that they were +the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of +Christ</i><a id="footnotetag248" name="footnotetag248"></a><a href="#footnote248"><sup>248</sup></a> was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the +secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, +considering the actual circumstances immediately following a +great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated +by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists +fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. These +Catharists did indeed go the length of expelling <i>all</i> so-called +mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat +<i>libellatici</i> more severely than unabashed transgressors;<a id="footnotetag249" name="footnotetag249"></a><a href="#footnote249"><sup>249</sup></a> but, +even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves +the "pure ones," since the Novatian Churches speedily +ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their renunciation +of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and +devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page122" id="page122"></a>[pg 122]</span> +the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, +judging from the sources that have come down to us, we may +confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches +in the subsequent period was practically identical.<a id="footnotetag250" name="footnotetag250"></a><a href="#footnote250"><sup>250</sup></a> As Novatian's +adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine +and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic +fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and +their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice +of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient +justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins, +a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could +not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, +through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, +and that not to the detriment of morality. For an +entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions +must in every case deaden the conscience towards +the latter.</p> + +<p>5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the +melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see +the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness<a id="footnotetag251" name="footnotetag251"></a><a href="#footnote251"><sup>251</sup></a> with which +the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated +the Church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of +civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes +upon them.<a id="footnotetag252" name="footnotetag252"></a><a href="#footnote252"><sup>252</sup></a> In learning to look upon the Church as a training +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page123" id="page123"></a>[pg 123]</span> +school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, +and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her +authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the +third century,<a id="footnotetag253" name="footnotetag253"></a><a href="#footnote253"><sup>253</sup></a> submitted to an arrangement that was really +best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church every +distinction between her political and religious conditions necessarily +led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in +Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; +or to the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page124" id="page124"></a>[pg 124]</span> +incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise +unsparing severity. A casuistic proceeding was necessary as +well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the Church. +Not the least important result of the crises produced by the +great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in West and +East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the +same time acquired full jurisdiction ("per episcopos solos peccata +posse dimitti"). If we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution +had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also +attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,<a id="footnotetag254" name="footnotetag254"></a><a href="#footnote254"><sup>254</sup></a> +we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment +that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions.<a id="footnotetag255" name="footnotetag255"></a><a href="#footnote255"><sup>255</sup></a> +No doubt the old Christianity had found its place in +the new Church, but it was covered over and concealed. In +spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression +of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal +holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here +the development in the history of dogma was in a very special +sense a development in the history of the Church. Catholicism +was now complete; the Church had suppressed all utterances +of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page125" id="page125"></a>[pg 125]</span> +Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. +In order to be a Christian a man no longer required in any +sense to be a saint. "What made the Christian a Christian +was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to +ecclesiastical authority," share in the gifts of the Church, and +the performance of penance and good works. The Church by +her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality +had created the authority of the Church. ("La médiocrité fonda +l'autorité".) The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and +the Lord's Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy +Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, +average morality in accordance with which the whole world could +live, were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: "Jesus +receives sinners," were subjected to an interpretation that +threatened to make them detrimental to morality.<a id="footnotetag256" name="footnotetag256"></a><a href="#footnote256"><sup>256</sup></a> And with +all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded—quite +the contrary. Alongside of a code of morals, to which +any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church began +to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which +really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this +constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, +and recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.<a id="footnotetag257" name="footnotetag257"></a><a href="#footnote257"><sup>257</sup></a></p> + +<p>A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those +of ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century—a comparison +of the actual state of things at the different periods is +hardly possible—will always lead to a disheartening result; +but the parallel is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that +the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page126" id="page126"></a>[pg 126]</span> +indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels. +III. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third century +and the non-Christian, between the Church and the Empire, +the clergy and the magistrates.<a id="footnotetag258" name="footnotetag258"></a><a href="#footnote258"><sup>258</sup></a> Amidst the general disorganisation +of all relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a +shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one +God, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously +raised. It gathered within it more and more all the +elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the +old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page127" id="page127"></a>[pg 127]</span> +barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this +edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness +than they did upon the earth generally, but within it +burned two mighty flames—the assurance of eternal life, guaranteed +by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows +history is aware that the influence of epoch-making personages +is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these +speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of +a dying world, and brought strength from the Holy One to +another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on +the Gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor +attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within +which the pious layman could find a holy place of peace and +edification. With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had +he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system +whose foundation was now being laid. We may say that the +religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became +impossible for them to take part in the establishment and +guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional +guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs +of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences +of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the +system. But to the layman who seeks from the Church nothing +more than aid in raising himself to God, this worldliness and +unveracity do not exist. During the Greek period, however, +laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited +extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system +were still too closely connected with their own interests. It +was in the Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy +Mother and her house a house of prayer—for the Germanic +peoples; for these races were really the children of the Church, +and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which +they worshipped.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page128" id="page128"></a>[pg 128]</span> + + +<h3>ADDENDA.</h3> + +<p>I. THE PRIESTHOOD. The completion of the old Catholic +conception of the Church, as this idea was developed in the +latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown +in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested +and which conferred on them the greatest importance.<a id="footnotetag259" name="footnotetag259"></a><a href="#footnote259"><sup>259</sup></a> +The development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof +that the Church had assumed a heathen complexion, cannot +be more particularly treated of here.<a id="footnotetag260" name="footnotetag260"></a><a href="#footnote260"><sup>260</sup></a> What meaning it has +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page129" id="page129"></a>[pg 129]</span> +is shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the +first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.). +The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as +they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives +of the congregation before God<a id="footnotetag261" name="footnotetag261"></a><a href="#footnote261"><sup>261</sup></a> and in so far as they +dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of God +in relation to the congregation. In this sense they are also +judges in God's stead.<a id="footnotetag262" name="footnotetag262"></a><a href="#footnote262"><sup>262</sup></a> The position here conceded to the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page130" id="page130"></a>[pg 130]</span> +higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen +religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.<a id="footnotetag263" name="footnotetag263"></a><a href="#footnote263"><sup>263</sup></a> +Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of +an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual +personages chosen by God. This fact is no way affected +by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to +the Old Testament priests as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial +and ecclesiastical regulations.<a id="footnotetag264" name="footnotetag264"></a><a href="#footnote264"><sup>264</sup></a> It is true that there is +no other respect in which Old Testament commandments were +incorporated with Christianity to such an extent as they were +in this.<a id="footnotetag265" name="footnotetag265"></a><a href="#footnote265"><sup>265</sup></a> But it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page131" id="page131"></a>[pg 131]</span> +took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically +no influence on the development itself, which was not +legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that +often in a somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that +the development which made the bishops and elders priests +altered the inward form of the Church in a more radical fashion +than any other. "Gnosticism," which the Church had repudiated +in the second century, became part of her own system in +the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on inalienable +objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest +innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the +secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. In +regard to every sphere of Church life, and hence also in respect +to the development of dogma<a id="footnotetag266" name="footnotetag266"></a><a href="#footnote266"><sup>266</sup></a> and the interpretation of the +Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. +The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its +frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had +thus a most skilful champion at the very first.<a id="footnotetag267" name="footnotetag267"></a><a href="#footnote267"><sup>267</sup></a></p> + +<p>II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have already +shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied +in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected +with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The latter was regarded +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page132" id="page132"></a>[pg 132]</span> +as the pure (<i>i.e.</i>, to be presented with a pure heart), +bloodless thank offering of which Malachi had prophesied in +I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned. +The alteration of the concept "priest" necessarily led to a +simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, +just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.<a id="footnotetag268" name="footnotetag268"></a><a href="#footnote268"><sup>268</sup></a> In Irenæus +and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers +are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer +hallows his whole life even as it does his offering, and forms +a well-pleasing sacrifice to God, remains essentially unchanged. +In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the +notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord's Supper.<a id="footnotetag269" name="footnotetag269"></a><a href="#footnote269"><sup>269</sup></a> But +nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification +in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, +martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts +of a Christian life, and extol their religious value—as had already +been done before; but he also attributes a God-propitiating +significance to these performances, and plainly designates +them as "merita" ("promereri deum"). To the best of my belief +Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances +as propitiatory offerings and ascribed to them the "potestas +reconciliandi iratum deum."<a id="footnotetag270" name="footnotetag270"></a><a href="#footnote270"><sup>270</sup></a> But he himself was far from using +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page133" id="page133"></a>[pg 133]</span> +this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax +Church practice that made Christianity consist in outward forms. +This result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific +in new developments, that elapsed between the persecutions of +Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again Cyprian +who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.<a id="footnotetag271" name="footnotetag271"></a><a href="#footnote271"><sup>271</sup></a> In +the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of +ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholicity +of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of +the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned, +Cyprian's injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on +the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without +sin (de op. et cleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction +that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. Hence +he concludes that we must appease God, whose wrath has been +aroused by sin, through performances of our own, that is, +through offerings that bear the character of "satisfactions." In +other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious +deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment. These deeds +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page134" id="page134"></a>[pg 134]</span> +Cyprian terms "merita," which either possess the character of +atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle +the Christian to a special reward (merces).<a id="footnotetag272" name="footnotetag272"></a><a href="#footnote272"><sup>272</sup></a> But, along with +<i>lamentationes</i> and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving +that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In +Cyprian's eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere +prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting +and alms, being regarded as "bare and unfruitful." In the +work "de opere et eleemosynis" which, after a fashion highly +characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and +Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may +call alms-giving as a <i>means of grace</i> in its relation to baptism +and salvation.<a id="footnotetag273" name="footnotetag273"></a><a href="#footnote273"><sup>273</sup></a> However, this practice can only be viewed as +a means of grace in Cyprian's sense in so far as God has accepted +it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human +act. After the Decian persecution and the rearrangement of +ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera +et eleemosynæ) made their way into the absolution system of +the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in it. Even +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page135" id="page135"></a>[pg 135]</span> +the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by abjuration +may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course +under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the Church. +The dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly +characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed +by Cyprian side by side. These are:—(1) that the sinfulness +common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the +power of baptism derived from the work of Christ, and (2) that +transgressions committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, +can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice +under the guidance of kind mother Church.<a id="footnotetag274" name="footnotetag274"></a><a href="#footnote274"><sup>274</sup></a> A Church capable +of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would +very soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. +What was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism +and granted by God through Christ, to which the <i>opera et +eleemosynæ</i> are merely to bear the relation of <i>accompanying</i> +acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form +a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got beyond his +"propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism" ("promereri +deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis"), and merely +hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has +committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same +readiness of God to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and +that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution. +His whole theory as to the legal nature of man's (the Christian's) +relationship to God, and the practice, inaugurated by +Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from +Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augustine's +time.<a id="footnotetag275" name="footnotetag275"></a><a href="#footnote275"><sup>275</sup></a> But, during this whole interval, no book was written +by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the +sinful Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page136" id="page136"></a>[pg 136]</span> +with so little regard to Christ's grace and the divine factor in +the case, as Cyprian's work <i>de opere et eleemosynis</i>.</p> + +<p>No less significant is Cyprian's advance as regards the idea +of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. +To begin with, Cyprian was the first to associate the specific +offering, <i>i.e.</i>, the Lord's Supper<a id="footnotetag276" name="footnotetag276"></a><a href="#footnote276"><sup>276</sup></a> with the specific priesthood. +Secondly, he was the first to designate the <i>passio dominis</i>, nay, +the <i>sanguis Christi</i> and the <i>dominica hostia</i> as the object of +the eucharistic offering.<a id="footnotetag277" name="footnotetag277"></a><a href="#footnote277"><sup>277</sup></a> Thirdly, he expressly represented the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page137" id="page137"></a>[pg 137]</span> +celebration of the Lord's Supper as an incorporation of the +congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was +the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance +attributed to commemoration of the celebrators ("vivi et defuncti"), +though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong +intercession.<a id="footnotetag278" name="footnotetag278"></a><a href="#footnote278"><sup>278</sup></a> But this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice +of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however +much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, +and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness +of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it. +Cyprian's statement that every celebration of the Lord's Supper +is a repetition or imitation of Christ's sacrifice of himself, and +that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a +mere assertion, though the Romish Church still continues to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page138" id="page138"></a>[pg 138]</span> +repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that +partaking of the Lord's Supper cleansed from sin like the +mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though +naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted +by the Church principles of penance and by the doctrine +of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper never became a +ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt, as far +as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual +copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an +indescribably important significance. It is not possible, within +the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development +of religious ceremonial in the third century, and to show +what a radical alteration took place in men's conceptions with +regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in +dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must +clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new +conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial +usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a +remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries +and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted +by Protestant scholars of all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine +may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the +former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely +different conditions.</p> + +<p>III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which +the Western Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament +in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only +possessed by the Church of the third century in the form of +baptism.<a id="footnotetag279" name="footnotetag279"></a><a href="#footnote279"><sup>279</sup></a> In strict theory she still held that the grace once +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page139" id="page139"></a>[pg 139]</span> +bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony +of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised +Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his +disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, <i>e.g.</i>, Iren. IV. 27. 2). +But, as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, +she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace +that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that +this remission became unlimited in its application.<a id="footnotetag280" name="footnotetag280"></a><a href="#footnote280"><sup>280</sup></a> The notions +as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain +in so far as the thought of God's absolving the sinner through +the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which +asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential +acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next +in importance <i>lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ</i>). In the third +century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the +hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced +the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same +way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. +From Cyprian's epistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the +first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions we indeed see +that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page140" id="page140"></a>[pg 140]</span> +sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ's declaration +that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her +mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that +expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a <i>sacramentum +absolutionis</i>. In this respect, as well as in regard to the <i>sacramentum +ordinis</i>, first instituted by Augustine, theory remained +far behind practice. This was by no means an advantage, for, +as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already +regarded as a system of means of grace. The consciousness of +a personal, living connection of the individual with God through +Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up +new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing +the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, +to a dangerous extent.</p> + +<p>Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism<a id="footnotetag281" name="footnotetag281"></a><a href="#footnote281"><sup>281</sup></a> +in the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. +p. 206 ff.). The result of baptism was universally considered to +be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect +an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.<a id="footnotetag282" name="footnotetag282"></a><a href="#footnote282"><sup>282</sup></a> We +frequently find "deliverance from death," "regeneration of +man," "restoration to the image of God," and "obtaining of +the Holy Spirit." ("Absolutio mortes," "regeneratio hominis," +"restitutio ad similitudinem dei" and "consecutio spiritus sancti") +named along with the "remission of sins" and "obtaining of +eternal life" ("remissio delictorum" and "consecutio æternitatis"). +Examples are to be found in Tertullian<a id="footnotetag283" name="footnotetag283"></a><a href="#footnote283"><sup>283</sup></a> adv. Marc. I. 28 and +elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the "bath of regeneration +and sanctification" ("lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis"). +Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, +on the strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings +are associated with baptism.<a id="footnotetag284" name="footnotetag284"></a><a href="#footnote284"><sup>284</sup></a> The constant additions to the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page141" id="page141"></a>[pg 141]</span> +baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early +period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these +supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,<a id="footnotetag285" name="footnotetag285"></a><a href="#footnote285"><sup>285</sup></a> and partly owe their +origin to the endeavour to provide the great mystery with fit +accompaniments.<a id="footnotetag286" name="footnotetag286"></a><a href="#footnote286"><sup>286</sup></a> As yet the separate acts can hardly be +proved to have an independent signification.<a id="footnotetag287" name="footnotetag287"></a><a href="#footnote287"><sup>287</sup></a> The water was +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page142" id="page142"></a>[pg 142]</span> +regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and +as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with +Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are associated with each other, +especially in Cyprian's epistles on baptism). He who asserted +the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in +Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV. p. 133).<a id="footnotetag288" name="footnotetag288"></a><a href="#footnote288"><sup>288</sup></a> Complete obscurity +prevails as to the Church's adoption of the practice of child +baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this +ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a +proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.<a id="footnotetag289" name="footnotetag289"></a><a href="#footnote289"><sup>289</sup></a> In +the time of Irenæus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) +child baptism had already become very general and was founded +on Matt. XIX. 14. We have no testimony regarding it from +earlier times; Clement of Alexandria does not yet assume it. +Tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious +faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because +he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) +on account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). +He says: "It is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially +in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for the +sponsors" (this is the first mention of "godparents") "also to be +thrust into danger?... let the little ones therefore come when +they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, +when they are taught where they are coming to; let them +become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why +does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? +People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page143" id="page143"></a>[pg 143]</span> +who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. +Whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its +attainment more than its delay."<a id="footnotetag290" name="footnotetag290"></a><a href="#footnote290"><sup>290</sup></a> To all appearance the +practice of immediately baptising the children of Christian families +was universally adopted in the Church in the course of the +third century. (Origen, Comment, in ep. ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. +IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down +by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, frequently +postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.<a id="footnotetag291" name="footnotetag291"></a><a href="#footnote291"><sup>291</sup></a></p> + +<p>The Lord's Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but +also as a divine gift.<a id="footnotetag292" name="footnotetag292"></a><a href="#footnote292"><sup>292</sup></a> The effects of this gift were not theoretically +fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme<a id="footnotetag293" name="footnotetag293"></a><a href="#footnote293"><sup>293</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page144" id="page144"></a>[pg 144]</span> +of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice +Christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly +gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious +theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual +and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is, +as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and +physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed +with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which +we have access do not allow us to classify these elements here; +for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between +spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects +unless he was in principle a spiritualist. But even a writer of +this kind had quite as superstitious an idea of the holy elements +as the rest. Thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication +of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium +of the union of the flesh with the Holy Spirit; and again as +food of the soul, as the bearer of the Spirit of Christ (the Logos), +as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge, as a sanctifying +of the whole personality. The thought of the forgiveness +of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing conception, +as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the +Lord's Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the +relation between the visible elements and the body of Christ. +So far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a +<i>problem</i> here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic +or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and the mystery +was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days +understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it +represents; at that time "symbol" denoted a thing which, in +some kind of way, really is what it signifies; but, on the other +hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly +element lay either in or behind the visible form without being +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page145" id="page145"></a>[pg 145]</span> +identical with it. Accordingly the distinction of a symbolic +and realistic conception of the Supper is altogether to be rejected; +we could more rightly distinguish between materialistic, +dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are not +to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. In +the popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments +of magical virtue (see Cypr., de laps. 25; Euseb., H. E. +VI. 44). With these the rank and file of third-century Christians +already connected many superstitious notions which the priests +tolerated or shared.<a id="footnotetag294" name="footnotetag294"></a><a href="#footnote294"><sup>294</sup></a> The antignostic Fathers acknowledged +that the consecrated food consisted of two things, an earthly +(the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of Christ). They +thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between +spirit and flesh, which the Gnostics denied; and a pledge of +the resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the Lord +(Justin; Iren. IV. 18. 4, 5; V. 2. 2, 3; likewise Tertullian who +is erroneously credited with a "symbolical" doctrine<a id="footnotetag295" name="footnotetag295"></a><a href="#footnote295"><sup>295</sup></a>). Clement +and Origen "spiritualise," because, like Ignatius, they assign +a spiritual significance to the flesh and blood of Christ himself +(summary of wisdom). To judge from the exceedingly confused +passage in Pæd. II. 2, Clement distinguishes a spiritual and a +material blood of Christ. Finally, however, he sees in the +Eucharist the union of the divine Logos with the human spirit, +recognises, like Cyprian at a later period, that the mixture +of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual +process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food +a relationship to the body.<a id="footnotetag296" name="footnotetag296"></a><a href="#footnote296"><sup>296</sup></a> It is true that Origen, the great +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page146" id="page146"></a>[pg 146]</span> +mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in +plainly "spiritualistic" fashion; but in his eyes religious mysteries +and the whole person of Christ lay in the province of the +spirit, and therefore his theory of the Supper is not "symbolical," +but conformable to his doctrine of Christ. Besides, Origen was +only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect +and the disposition, and in the assistance given to these +by man's own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking +and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are from +Origen's standpoint completely indifferent matters. The intelligent +Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, that +is, on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending +Supper (c. Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind to +the fact that his doctrine of the Lord's Supper was just as far +removed from the faith of the simple Christian as his doctrinal +system generally. Here also, therefore, he accommodated himself +to that faith in points where it seemed necessary. This, +however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him everything +is at bottom "spiritual," he was unwilling to dispense +with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must +be <i>initiated</i> into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one +learns the lower sciences.<a id="footnotetag297" name="footnotetag297"></a><a href="#footnote297"><sup>297</sup></a> But, whether we consider simple +believers, the antignostic Fathers or Origen, and, moreover, +whether we view the Supper as offering or sacrament, we everywhere +observe that the holy ordinance had been entirely +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page147" id="page147"></a>[pg 147]</span> +diverted from its original purpose and pressed into the service +of the spirit of antiquity. In no other point perhaps is the +hellenisation of the Gospel so evident as in this. To mention +only one other example, this is also shown in the practice of +child communion, which, though we first hear of it in Cyprian +(Testim. III. 25; de laps. 25), can hardly be of later origin +than child baptism. Partaking of the Supper seemed quite as +indispensable as baptism, and the child had no less claim than +the adult to a magical food from heaven.<a id="footnotetag298" name="footnotetag298"></a><a href="#footnote298"><sup>298</sup></a></p> + +<hr /> + +<p>In the course of the third century a crass superstition became +developed in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the +mysteries connected with her. According to this notion we +must subject ourselves to the Church and must have ourselves +filled with holy consecrations as we are filled with food. But +the following chapters will show that this superstition and +mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively conception +of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. +Fettered by the bonds of authority and superstition in the +sphere of religion, free and self-dependent in the province of +morality, this Christianity is characterised by passive submission +in the first respect and by complete activity in the second. It +may be that exegetical theology can never advance beyond an +alternation between these two aspects of the case, and a recognition +of their equal claim to consideration; for the religious +phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation. +But religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency +of the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle +of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page148" id="page148"></a>[pg 148]</span> +viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place +to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious +as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after +ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the character of Catholicism +since the third century, and even after Augustine's time +it has still remained the same in its practice.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page149" id="page149"></a>[pg 149]</span> + +<h3><i>EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III.</i></h3> + +<h3>CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.<a id="footnotetag299" name="footnotetag299"></a><a href="#footnote299"><sup>299</sup></a></h3> + + +<p>In investigating the development of Christianity up till about +the year 270 the following facts must be specially kept in +mind: In the regions subject to Rome, apart from the Judæo-Christian +districts and passing disturbances, Christianity had yet +an undivided history in vital questions;<a id="footnotetag300" name="footnotetag300"></a><a href="#footnote300"><sup>300</sup></a> the independence of +individual congregations and of the provincial groups of Churches +was very great; and every advance in the development of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page150" id="page150"></a>[pg 150]</span> +communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their +adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first +two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further +apart the different Churches lay, the more various were the +conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser +the relations between the towns in which they had their home +the looser also was the connection between them. Still, it is +evident that towards the end of the third century the development +in the Church had well-nigh attained the same point +everywhere—except in outlying communities. Catholicism, essentially +as we conceive it now, was what most of the Churches +had arrived at. Now it is an <i>a priori</i> probability that this +transformation of Christianity, which was simply the adaptation +of the Gospel to the then existing Empire, came about under +the guidance of the metropolitan Church,<a id="footnotetag301" name="footnotetag301"></a><a href="#footnote301"><sup>301</sup></a> the Church of +Rome; and that "Roman" and "Catholic" had therefore a +special relation from the beginning. It might <i>a limine</i> be objected +to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in +support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also +improbable, in so far as, in view of the then existing condition +of society, Catholicism appears as the <i>natural and only possible</i> +form in which Christianity could be adapted to the world. But +this is not the case; for in the first place very strong proofs +can be adduced, and besides, as is shown by the development +in the second century, very different kinds of secularisation +were possible. In fact, if all appearances are not deceptive, +the Alexandrian Church, for example, was up to the time of +Septimius Severus pursuing a path of development which, left +to itself, would <i>not</i> have led to Catholicism, but, in the most +favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.<a id="footnotetag302" name="footnotetag302"></a><a href="#footnote302"><sup>302</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page151" id="page151"></a>[pg 151]</span> + +<p>It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church, +which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with +that of Asia Minor, that all the elements on which Catholicism +is based first assumed a definite form.<a id="footnotetag303" name="footnotetag303"></a><a href="#footnote303"><sup>303</sup></a> (1) We know that the +Roman Church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession, +and that as early as the year 180 she declared this to be +the apostolic rule by which everything is to be measured. It +is only in her case that we are really certain of this, for we +can merely guess at it as regards the Church of Smyrna, that +is, of Asia Minor. It was accordingly admitted that the Roman +Church was able to distinguish true from false with special +exactness;<a id="footnotetag304" name="footnotetag304"></a><a href="#footnote304"><sup>304</sup></a> and Irenæus and Tertullian appealed to her to +decide the practice in Gaul and Africa. This practice, in its +precisely developed form, cannot be shown to have existed +in Alexandria till a later period; but Origen, who testifies to +it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and connection +with the Roman Church. (2) The New Testament canon, with +its claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page152" id="page152"></a>[pg 152]</span> +exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities +it can only be proved to exist at a later period. In +the great Antiochian diocese there was, for instance, a Church +some of whose members wished the Gospel of Peter read; in +the Pentapolis group of congregations the Gospel of the Egyptians +was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian Churches of the +same epoch used Tatian's Diatessaron; and the original of the +first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no +mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alexandria +no doubt testifies that, in consequence of the common +history of Christianity, the group of Scriptures read in the +Roman congregations was also the same as that employed in +public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no New Testament +canon before him in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. +It was not till Origen's time that Alexandria reached the stage +already attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must, +however, be pointed out that a series of New Testament books, +in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised, +show marks of revision that can be traced back to the Roman +Church.<a id="footnotetag305" name="footnotetag305"></a><a href="#footnote305"><sup>305</sup></a> Finally, the later investigations, which show that after +the third century the Western readings, that is, the Roman +text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS. +of the Bible,<a id="footnotetag306" name="footnotetag306"></a><a href="#footnote306"><sup>306</sup></a> are of the utmost value here; for the most natural +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page153" id="page153"></a>[pg 153]</span> +explanation of these facts is that the Eastern Churches then +received their New Testament from Rome and used it to correct +their copies of books read in public worship.<a id="footnotetag307" name="footnotetag307"></a><a href="#footnote307"><sup>307</sup></a> (3) Rome is +the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list +of bishops reaching back to the Apostles (see Irenæus).<a id="footnotetag308" name="footnotetag308"></a><a href="#footnote308"><sup>308</sup></a> We +know that in the time of Heliogabalus such lists also existed +in other communities; but it cannot be proved that these had +already been drawn up by the time of Marcus Aurelius or +Commodus, as was certainly the case at Rome. (4) The notion +of the apostolic succession of the episcopate<a id="footnotetag309" name="footnotetag309"></a><a href="#footnote309"><sup>309</sup></a> was first turned +to account by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who +definitely formulated the political idea of the Church in connection +with this. The utterances and corresponding practical +measures of Victor,<a id="footnotetag310" name="footnotetag310"></a><a href="#footnote310"><sup>310</sup></a> Calixtus (Hippolytus), and Stephen are +the earliest of their kind; whilst the precision and assurance +with which they substituted the political and clerical for the +ideal conception of the Church, or amalgamated the two notions, +as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the sovereignty +of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century +by Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page154" id="page154"></a>[pg 154]</span> +that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to +her bishops; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not +according to their own, but according to the Roman episcopate.<a id="footnotetag311" name="footnotetag311"></a><a href="#footnote311"><sup>311</sup></a> +(6) The Oriental Churches say that two bishops of Rome compiled +the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the +Church; and this is only partially wrong.<a id="footnotetag312" name="footnotetag312"></a><a href="#footnote312"><sup>312</sup></a> (7) The three great +theologians of the age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, +opposed the pretensions of the Roman bishop Calixtus; and +this very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the +political organisation of the Church, denoted by the measures +of Calixtus, was still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately +exercised a very important influence on the attitude of other +Churches. We know that the other communities imitated this +advance in the succeeding decades. (8) The institution of lower +orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction of <i>clerici maiores</i> +and <i>minores</i> first took place in Rome; but we know +that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that +city to the rest of Christendom.<a id="footnotetag313" name="footnotetag313"></a><a href="#footnote313"><sup>313</sup></a> (9) The different Churches +communicated with one another through the medium of Rome.<a id="footnotetag314" name="footnotetag314"></a><a href="#footnote314"><sup>314</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page155" id="page155"></a>[pg 155]</span> + +<p>From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the +fundamental apostolic institutions and laws of Catholicism were +framed in the same city that in other respects imposed its +authority on the whole earth; and that it was the centre from +which they spread, because the world had become accustomed +to receive law and justice from Rome.<a id="footnotetag315" name="footnotetag315"></a><a href="#footnote315"><sup>315</sup></a> But it may be objected +that the parallel development in other provinces and +towns was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at +a somewhat later date. Nor do we intend to contest the assumption +in this general sense; but, as I think, it can be proved that +the Roman community had a direct and important share in the +process and that, even in the second century, she was reckoned +the first and most influential Church.<a id="footnotetag316" name="footnotetag316"></a><a href="#footnote316"><sup>316</sup></a> We shall give a bird's-eye +view of the most important facts bearing on the question, +in order to prove this.</p> + +<p>No other community made a more brilliant entrance into +Church history than did that of Rome by the so called First +Epistle of Clement—Paul having already testified (Rom. I. 8) +that the faith of this Church was spoken of throughout the whole +world. That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end +of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up +fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page156" id="page156"></a>[pg 156]</span> +care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to +use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and +authority.<a id="footnotetag317" name="footnotetag317"></a><a href="#footnote317"><sup>317</sup></a> As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, +but she knows the "commandments and ordinances" (προσταγματα and +δοκαιωματα) of God, whereas the conduct of the sister Church +evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly +condition, whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; +she adheres to the κανων της παραδοσεως, whilst the +other body stands in need of exhortation;<a id="footnotetag318" name="footnotetag318"></a><a href="#footnote318"><sup>318</sup></a> and in these facts +her claim to authority consists. The Shepherd of Hermas also +proves that even in the circles of the laity the Roman Church +is impressed with the consciousness that she must care for the +whole of Christendom. The first testimony of an outsider as +to this community is afforded us by Ignatius. Soften as we +may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the Romans, +it is at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence +in the circle of sister Churches; and that he was well acquainted +with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and +instructing other communities.<a id="footnotetag319" name="footnotetag319"></a><a href="#footnote319"><sup>319</sup></a> Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter +to bishop Soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested +by the Christian Church of the world's metropolis on +behalf of all Christendom and of all brethren far and near; +and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page157" id="page157"></a>[pg 157]</span> +with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as in Antioch. +This author has specially emphasised the fact that the Roman +Christians are <i>Romans</i>, that is, are conscious of the particular +duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan +Church.<a id="footnotetag320" name="footnotetag320"></a><a href="#footnote320"><sup>320</sup></a> After this evidence we cannot wonder that Irenæus +expressly assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank +among those founded by the Apostles.<a id="footnotetag321" name="footnotetag321"></a><a href="#footnote321"><sup>321</sup></a> His famous testimony +has been quite as often under as over-estimated. Doubtless +his reference to the Roman Church is introduced in such +a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example, just +as he also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus; but there +is quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary +selection. The truth rather is that the Roman community <i>must</i> +have been named, because its decision was already the most +authoritative and impressive in Christendom.<a id="footnotetag322" name="footnotetag322"></a><a href="#footnote322"><sup>322</sup></a> Whilst giving a +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page158" id="page158"></a>[pg 158]</span> +formal scheme of proof that assigned the same theoretical value +to each Church founded by the Apostles, Irenæus added a reference +to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many +communities turned to Rome in order to testify their orthodoxy.<a id="footnotetag323" name="footnotetag323"></a><a href="#footnote323"><sup>323</sup></a> +As soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories and +keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for +astonishment. Considering the active intercourse between the +various Churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance +to all, especially so long as they required financial +aid, to be in connection with that of Rome, to receive support +from her, to know she would entertain travelling brethren, and +to have the power of recommending prisoners and those pining +in the mines to her influential intervention. The evidence of +Ignatius and Dionysius as well as the Marcia-Victor episode +place this beyond doubt (see above). The efforts of Marcion +and Valentinus in Rome have also a bearing on this question, +and the venerable bishop, Polycarp, did not shrink from the toil +of a long journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the +Roman Church;<a id="footnotetag324" name="footnotetag324"></a><a href="#footnote324"><sup>324</sup></a> it was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page159" id="page159"></a>[pg 159]</span> +but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the time when the controversy +with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church showed all the rest +an example of resolution; it was naturally to be expected that, +as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require +other communities to recognise the law by which she had regulated +her own circumstances. No community in the Empire +could regard with indifference its relationship to the great Roman +Church; almost everyone had connections with her; she contained +believers from all the rest. As early as 180 this Church could +point to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession +from the glorious apostles Paul and Peter<a id="footnotetag325" name="footnotetag325"></a><a href="#footnote325"><sup>325</sup></a> down to the present +time; and she alone maintained a brief but definitely formulated +<i>lex</i>, which she entitled the summary of apostolic tradition, +and by reference to which she decided all questions of faith +with admirable certainty. Theories were incapable of overcoming +the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon +as Christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and +towns of the Empire. Nor was it theories that created the +empiric unity of the Churches, but the unity which the Empire +possessed in Rome; the extent and composition of the Græco-Latin +community there; the security—and this was not the +least powerful element—that accompanied the development of +this great society, well provided as it was with wealth and +possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from +the first century;<a id="footnotetag326" name="footnotetag326"></a><a href="#footnote326"><sup>326</sup></a> as well as the care which it displayed on +behalf of all Christendom. <i>All these causes combined to convert +the Christian communities into a real confederation under the +primacy of the Roman Church (and subsequently under the +leadership of her bishops).</i> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page160" id="page160"></a>[pg 160]</span> +This primacy cannot of course be +further defined, for it was merely a <i>de facto</i> one. But, from +the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken, when it was +claimed as a <i>legal</i> right associated with the person of the Roman +bishop.</p> + +<p>That this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by +several facts which prove the unique authority as well as the +interference of the Roman Church (that is, of her bishop). First, +in the Montanist controversy—and that too at the stage when +it was still almost exclusively confined to Asia Minor—the already +sobered adherents of the new prophecy petitioned Rome +(bishop Eleutherus) to recognise their Church, and it was at +Rome that the Gallic confessors cautiously interfered in their +behalf; after which a native of Asia Minor induced the Roman +bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already issued.<a id="footnotetag327" name="footnotetag327"></a><a href="#footnote327"><sup>327</sup></a> In +view of the facts that it was not Roman Montanists who were +concerned, that Rome was the place where the Asiatic members +of this sect sought for recognition, and that it was in Rome +that the Gauls interfered in their behalf, the significance of this +proceeding cannot be readily minimised. We cannot of course +dogmatise on the matter; but the fact can be proved that the +decision of the Roman Church must have settled the position +of that sect of enthusiasts in Christendom. Secondly, what is +reported to us of Victor, the successor of Eleutherus, is still +plainer testimony. He ventured to issue an edict, which we +may already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the Roman +practice with regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals +to be the universal rule in the Church, and declaring that every +congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman arrangement,<a id="footnotetag328" name="footnotetag328"></a><a href="#footnote328"><sup>328</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page161" id="page161"></a>[pg 161]</span> +was excluded from the union of the one Church on the ground +of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on such an edict—though +indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every +case—unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine +the conditions of the "common unity" (κοινη 'ενωσις) in the +vital questions of the faith had been an acknowledged and well-established +fact? How could Victor have addressed such a +demand to the independent Churches, if he had not been recognised, +in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special +guardian of the κοινη 'ενωσισ?<a id="footnotetag329" name="footnotetag329"></a><a href="#footnote329"><sup>329</sup></a> Thirdly, it was Victor who formally +excluded Theodotus from Church fellowship. This is the +first really well-attested case of a Christian <i>taking his stand +on the rule of faith</i> being excommunicated because a definite +interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance +the expression 'υιος μονογενης (only begotten Son) was required +to be understood in the sense of Φυσει Θεος (God by nature). +It was in Rome that this first took place. Fourthly, under +Zephyrinus, Victor's successor, the Roman ecclesiastics interfered +in the Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause +with the local clergy against Tertullian; and both appealed to +the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the Roman +bishops.<a id="footnotetag330" name="footnotetag330"></a><a href="#footnote330"><sup>330</sup></a> Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian were +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page162" id="page162"></a>[pg 162]</span> +obliged to resist the pretensions of these ecclesiastics to authority +outside their own Church, the first having to contend with +Calixtus, and the three others with Stephen.<a id="footnotetag331" name="footnotetag331"></a><a href="#footnote331"><sup>331</sup></a></p> + +<p>It was the Roman <i>Church</i> that first displayed this activity +and care; the Roman bishop sprang from the community in +exactly the same way as the corresponding official did in other +places.<a id="footnotetag332" name="footnotetag332"></a><a href="#footnote332"><sup>332</sup></a> In Irenæus' proof from prescription, however, it is +already the Roman <i>bishops</i> that are specially mentioned.<a id="footnotetag333" name="footnotetag333"></a><a href="#footnote333"><sup>333</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page163" id="page163"></a>[pg 163]</span> +Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the authority of his +predecessors ("auctoritates præcessorum eius") and it was in +the character of <i>bishop</i> that Victor acted. The assumption that +Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church +of that city (Dionysius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius), must have +conferred a high degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as +the latter officials were elevated to the position of more or less +sovereign lords of the communities and were regarded as successors +of the Apostles. The first who acted up to this idea was Calixtus. +The sarcastic titles of "pontifex maximus," "episcopus episcoporum," +"benedictus papa" and "apostolicus," applied to him +by Tertullian in "de pudicitia" I. 13, are so many references to +the fact that Calixtus already claimed for himself a position of +primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own personal +position as bishop the primacy possessed by the Roman +Church, which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually +vanishing in proportion to the progress of the Catholic form +of organisation among the other communities. Moreover, that +is evident from the form of the edict he issued (Tert. I. c., I: +"I hear that an edict has been issued and that a decisive one," +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page164" id="page164"></a>[pg 164]</span> +"audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium"), +from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to it on +the part of Tertullian. From the form, in so far as Calixtus +acted here quite independently and, without previous consultation, +issued a <i>peremptory</i> edict, that is, one settling the matter +and immediately taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, +in so far as he appealed in justification of his action to Matt. +XVI. 18 ff.<a id="footnotetag334" name="footnotetag334"></a><a href="#footnote334"><sup>334</sup></a>—the first instance of the kind recorded in history; +from Tertullian's opposition to it, because the latter treats it +not as local, Roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all +Christendom. But, as soon as the question took the form of +enquiring whether the Roman <i>bishop</i> was elevated above the +rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century, +as already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops, +still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a +political constitution to the Church. It can also be proved that +even far distant congregations were still being bound to the +Roman Church through financial support,<a id="footnotetag335" name="footnotetag335"></a><a href="#footnote335"><sup>335</sup></a> and that she was +appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of the city +of Rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.<a id="footnotetag336" name="footnotetag336"></a><a href="#footnote336"><sup>336</sup></a> It +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page165" id="page165"></a>[pg 165]</span> +is further manifest from Cyprian's epistles that the Roman +Church was regarded as the <i>ecclesia principalis</i>, as the guardian +<i>par excellence</i> of the <i>unity</i> of the Church. We may explain +from Cyprian's own particular situation all else that he said in +praise of the Roman Church (see above p. 88, note 2) and +specially of the <i>cathedra Petri</i>; but the general view that she +is the "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" is not peculiar to +him, and the statement that the "unitas sacerdotalis" originated +in Rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by the +altered circumstances of the Church, for the acknowledged fact +that the Roman community was the most distinguished among +the sister groups, and as such had had and still possessed the +right and duty of watching over the unity of the whole. Cyprian +himself no doubt took a further step at the time of his correspondence +with Cornelius, and proclaimed the special reference +of Matt. XVI. to the <i>cathedra Petri</i>; but he confined his theory +to the abstractions "ecclesia," "cathedra." In him the importance +of this <i>cathedra</i> oscillates between the significance of a +once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and +that of a real and permanent court of appeal. Moreover, he +did not go the length of declaring that any special authority +within the collective Church attached to the temporary occupant +of the <i>cathedra Petri</i>. If we remove from Cyprian's abstractions +everything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete +corresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerogative +of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains +behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which indeed +is represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page166" id="page166"></a>[pg 166]</span> +frankly: "owing to her magnitude Rome ought to have precedence +over Carthage" ("pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem +Roma præcedere") and his theory: "the episcopate is one, and +a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole" ("episcopatus +unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur"), virtually +excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particular +bishop (see also "de unit." 4). Here we have reached the +point that has already been briefly referred to above, viz., +that the consolidation of the Churches in the Empire after +the Roman pattern could not but endanger the prestige and +peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do so. If we consider +that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his +own diocese—now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were recognised +to be successors of the Apostles, that, moreover, the +attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the +conception of the episcopal office, and that, the metropolitan +unions with their presidents and synods had become completely +naturalised—in short, that the rigid episcopal and provincial +constitution of the Church had become an accomplished fact, +so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities, but merely +bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see +that a new situation was thereby created for Rome, that is, for +her bishop. In the West it was perhaps chiefly through the +coöperation of Cyprian that Rome found herself face to face +with a completely organised Church system. His behaviour in +the controversy about heretical baptism proves that in cases of +dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of the sovereign +authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary +connection with the <i>cathedra Petri</i>. But, when that levelling +of the episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired +rights that could no longer be cancelled.<a id="footnotetag337" name="footnotetag337"></a><a href="#footnote337"><sup>337</sup></a> Besides, there was +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page167" id="page167"></a>[pg 167]</span> +one thing that could not be taken from the Roman Church, +nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied +the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome. +The site of the world's metropolis might be shifted, but Rome +could not be removed. In the long run, however, the shifting +of the capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical Rome. At +the beginning of the great epoch when the alienation of East +from West became pronounced and permanent, an emperor, +from political grounds, decided in favour of that party in Antioch +"with whom the bishops in Italy and the city of the Romans +held intercourse" ('οις αν 'οι κατα την Ιταλιαν και την Ρωμαιων +πολιν επισκοποι του δογματος επιστελλοιεν<a id="footnotetag338" name="footnotetag338"></a><a href="#footnote338"><sup>338</sup></a>). In this instance the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page168" id="page168"></a>[pg 168]</span> +interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the emperor +coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now +completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more +help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue +their own interest. So the bishop of Rome had step by step +to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a +purely dogmatic theory and being forced to repudiate any +empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the Church system +that the Roman community more than any other had helped +to build up. The proposition "the Roman Church always had +the primacy" ("ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum") +and the statement that "Catholic" virtually means "Roman +Catholic" are gross fictions, when devised in honour of the +temporary occupant of the Roman see and detached from +the significance of the Eternal City in profane history; but, +applied to the <i>Church</i> of the imperial capital, they contain a +truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt +to explain the process by which the Church was unified and +catholicised.<a id="footnotetag339" name="footnotetag339"></a><a href="#footnote339"><sup>339</sup></a></p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote193" name="footnote193"></a><b>Footnote 193:</b><a href="#footnotetag193"> (return) </a><p> +See Ritschl, l.c.; Schwegler. Der Montanismus, 1841; Gottwald, De Montanismo +Tertulliani, 1862; Réville, Tertull. et le Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes +of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehlin, Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Montanism +and the Primitive Church, 1878; Cunningham, The Churches of Asia, 1880; +Renan, Les Crises du Catholicisme Naissant in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th +Febr. 1881; Renan, Marc Aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des +Montanismus, 1881; Harnack, Das Monchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte, +3rd. ed., 1886; Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883; Voigt, Eine verschollene +Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes, 1891. Further the articles on Montanism +by Moller (Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), +and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsäcker in the Theologische Litteraturzeitung, +1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen +Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches +Leben, 1884, Parts 8, 9; M. von Engelhardt, Die ersten Versuche zur Aufrichtung +des wahren Christenthums in einer Gemeinde von Heiligen, Riga, 1881.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote194" name="footnote194"></a><b>Footnote 194:</b><a href="#footnotetag194"> (return) </a><p> +In certain vital points the conception of the original nature and history of +Montanism, as sketched in the following account, does not correspond with that +traditionally current. To establish it in detail would lead us too far. It may be +noted that the mistakes in estimating the original character of this movement arise from +a superficial examination of the oracles preserved to us and from the unjustifiable +practice of interpreting them in accordance with their later application in the circles +of Western Montanists. A completely new organisation of Christendom, +beginning with the Church in Asia, to be brought about by its being +detached from the bonds of the communities and collected into one region, was the +main effort of Montanus. In this way he expected to restore to the Church a spiritual +character and fulfil the promises contained in John. That is clear from Euseb., V. 16 +ff. as well as from the later history of Montanism in its native land (see +Jerome, ep. 41; Epiphan., H. 49. 2 etc.). In itself, however, apart from its particular +explanation in the case of Montanus, the endeavour to detach Christians from the local +Church unions has so little that is striking about it, that one rather +wonders at being unable to point to any parallel in the earliest history of the Church. +Wherever religious enthusiasm has been strong, it has at all times felt that nothing +hinders its effect more than family ties and home connections. But it is just from the +absence of similar undertakings in the earliest Christianity that we +are justified in concluding that the strength of enthusiastic exaltation is no standard +for the strength of <i>Christian</i> faith. (Since these words were written, we have +read in Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel [see Georgiades in the journal Εκκλ. +αληθεια 1885, p. 52 sq.] very interesting accounts of such undertakings in the +time of Septimius Severus. A Syrian bishop persuaded many brethren with wives and +children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; and another in Pontus induced his +people to sell all their possessions, to cease tilling their lands, to conclude no +more marriages etc., because the coming of the Lord was nigh at hand.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote195" name="footnote195"></a><b>Footnote 195:</b><a href="#footnotetag195"> (return) </a><p>Oracle of Prisca in Epiph. H. 49. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote196" name="footnote196"></a><b>Footnote 196:</b><a href="#footnotetag196"> (return) </a><p> Even in its original home Montanism must have accommodated itself to +circumstances at a comparatively early +date—which is not in the least extraordinary. No doubt the Montanist Churches in +Asia and Phrygia, to which the bishop of Rome had already issued <i>literæ pacis</i>, +were now very different from the +original followers of the prophets (Tertull., adv. Prax. 1). When Tertullian further +reports that Praxeas at the last moment prevented them from being recognised by the +bishop of Rome, "falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando," the +"falsehood about the Churches" may simply have consisted in an account of +the original tendencies of the Montanist sect. The whole unique history which, in +spite of this, Montanism undoubtedly passed through in its original home is, however +explained by the circumstance that there were districts there, where all Christians +belonged to that sect (Epiph., H. 51. 33; cf. also the later history of +Novatianism). In their peculiar Church organisation (patriarchs, stewards, bishops), +these sects preserved a record of their origin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote197" name="footnote197"></a><b>Footnote 197:</b><a href="#footnotetag197"> (return) </a><p> Special weight must be laid on this. The fact that whole communities +became followers of the new prophets, who nevertheless adhered to no old regulation, +must above all be taken into account.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote198" name="footnote198"></a><b>Footnote 198:</b><a href="#footnotetag198"> (return) </a><p> See Oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in Bonwetsch, l.c., p. +197 f. It can hardly have been customary for Christian prophets to speak like +Montanus (Nos. 3-5): +εγω κυριος 'ο θεος 'ο παντοκρατωρ καταγινομενος εν ανθροπω, or +εγω κυριος 'ο θεος +πατηρ ηλθον, or εγω ειμι 'ο πατηρ και 'ο υιος και 'ο παρακλητος, though Old +Testament prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11); +απεστειλε με κυριος τουτου του πονου και της επαγγελιας αιρετιστην; and a +second time (No. 12): διωκομαι 'ως λυκος εκ προβατων ουκ ειμι λυκος; 'ρημα +ειμι και πνευμα και δυναμις. The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one +another (cf. also No. 10: εμου μη ακουσητε αλλα Χριστου ακουσατε). From James +IV. V. and Hermas, and from the Didache, on the other hand, we can see how the +prophets of Christian communities may have usually spoken.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote199" name="footnote199"></a><b>Footnote 199:</b><a href="#footnotetag199"> (return) </a><p> +L.c., no. 9: Χριστος 'εν ιδεα γυναικος εσχηματισμενος. How variable must the +misbirths of the Christian imagination have been in this respect also! Unfortunately +almost everything of that kind has been lost to us because it has been suppressed. +The fragments of the once highly esteemed Apocalypse of Peter are instructive, +for they still attest that the existing remains of early Christian literature are not +able to give a correct picture of the strength of religious imagination in the first +and second centuries. The passages where Christophanies are spoken of in the +earliest literature would require to be collected. It would be shown what naive +enthusiasm existed. Jesus appears to believers as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as +Paul etc. Conversely, glorified men appear in visions with the features of Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote200" name="footnote200"></a><b>Footnote 200:</b><a href="#footnotetag200"> (return) </a><p> +See Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. In Oracle No. 2 an evangelical promise is repeated +in a heightened form; but see Papias in Iren., V. 33. 3 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote201" name="footnote201"></a><b>Footnote 201:</b><a href="#footnotetag201"> (return) </a><p> +We may unhesitatingly act on the principle that the Montanist elements, as +they appear in Tertullian, are, in all cases, found not in a strengthened, but a +weakened, form. So, when even Tertullian still asserts that the Paraclete in the +new prophets could overturn or change, and actually did change, regulations of +the Apostles, there is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere +to apostolic dicta and had no hesitation in deviating from them. Cf., moreover, +the direct declarations on this point in Hippolytus (Syntagma and Philos. VIII. 19) +and in Didymus (de trin. III. 41. 2).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote202" name="footnote202"></a><b>Footnote 202:</b><a href="#footnotetag202"> (return) </a><p> The precepts for a Christian life, if we may so speak, given by the new +prophets, cannot be determined from the compromises on which the discipline of +the later Montanist societies of the Empire were based. Here they sought for a +narrow line between the Marcionite and Encratite mode of life and the common +church practice, and had no longer the courage and the candour to proclaim the +"e sæculo excedere." Sexual purity and the renunciation of the enjoyments of +life were the demands of the new prophets. But it is hardly likely that they +prescribed precise "laws," for the primary matter was not asceticism, but the +realising of a promise. In later days it was therefore possible to conceive the +most extreme demands as regulations referring to none but the prophets themselves, +and to tone down the oracles in their application to believers. It is said of +Montanus himself (Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 2): 'ο διδαξας λυσεις γαμων, 'ο νηστειας +νομοθετησας; Prisca was a παρθενος (l.c. § 3); Proculus, the chief of the +Roman +Montanists, "virginis senectæ" (Tert., adv. Val. 5). The oracle of Prisca (No. 8) +declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions +of God; it is presupposed in the case of every "sanctus minister." Finally, +Origen tells us (in Titum, Opp. IV. 696) that the (older) Cataphrygians said: "ne +accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum +patens guttur menin, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi." But an +express legal direction to abolish marriage cannot have existed in the collection of +oracles possessed by Tertullian. But who can guarantee that they were not already +corrected? Such an assumption, however, is not necessary.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote203" name="footnote203"></a><b>Footnote 203:</b><a href="#footnotetag203"> (return) </a><p>Euseb., V. 16. 9: V. 18. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote204" name="footnote204"></a><b>Footnote 204:</b><a href="#footnotetag204"> (return) </a><p> +It will not do simply to place Montanus and his two female associates in the +same category as the prophets of primitive Christian Churches. The claim that +the Spirit had descended upon them in unique fashion must have been put forth +by themselves with unmistakable clearness. If we apply the principle laid down +on p. 98, note 3, we will find that—apart from the prophets' own utterances—this +is still clearly manifest from the works of Tertullian. A consideration of the +following facts will remove all doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the +possession of an unique mission, (1) From the beginning both opponents and followers +constantly applied the title "New Prophecy" to the phenomenon in question +(Euseb., V. 16. 4: V. 19. 2; Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93; Tertull., monog. 14, ieiun. I, +resurr. 63, Marc. III. 24.: IV. 22, Prax. 30; Firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) Similarly, +the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the "Paraclete" (Orac. +no. 5; Tertull. passim; Hippol. passim; Didymus etc.). (3) Even in the third +century the Montanist congregations of the Empire must still have doubted whether +the Apostles had possessed this Paraclete or not, or at least whether this had been +the case in the full sense. Tertullian identifies the Spirit and the Paraclete and +declares that the Apostles possessed the latter in full measure—in fact as a Catholic +he could not do otherwise. Nevertheless he calls Montanus etc. "prophetæ proprii" +of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos. +VIII. 19: 'υπερ δε αποστολους και παν χαρισμα ταυτα τα γυναια δοξαζουιν, 'ως +τολμαν πλειον τι Χριστου εν τουτοις λεγειν τινας αυτων γεγονεαι. Pseudo-Tertullian +says: "in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, +et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse." +In Didymus, l.c., we read: του αποστολου γραψαντος k.t.l., εκεινοι λεγουσιν τον +Μοντανον εληλυθεναι και εσχηκεναι το τελειον το του παρακλητον, τουτ' εστιν το +του αγιον πνευματος. (4) Lastly, the Montanists asserted that the prediction contained +in John XIV. ff. had been fulfilled in the new prophecy, and that from the beginning, +as is denoted by the very expression "Paraclete."</p> + +<p>What sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted +passage, for the promises contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic +carrying out of Montanus' programme. If we read attentively John XIV. 16-21, +23, 26: XV. 20-26: XVI. 7-15, 25 as well as XVII. and X.; if we compare the +oracles of the prophets still preserved to us; if we consider the attempt of Montanus +to gather the scattered Christians and really form them into a flock, and also +his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all +truth; and, finally, if we call to mind that in those Johannine discourses Christ +designated the coming of the Paraclete as his own coming in the Paraclete and +spoke of an immanence and unity of Father, Son, and Paraclete, which one finds +re-echoed in Montanus' Oracle No. V., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter's +undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets +by the promises contained in the Gospel of John, understood in an apocalyptic +and realistic sense, and also by Matt. XXIII. 34 (see Euseb., V. 16. 12 sq.). The +correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents +of the Montanists in Asia—the so-called "Alogi" (Epiph., H. 51)—rejected both +the Gospel and Revelation of John, that is, regarded them as written by some one +else. Montanism therefore shows us the first and—up till about 180—really the +only impression made by the Gospel of John on non-Gnostic Gentile Christians; +and what a remarkable one it was! It has a parallel in Marcion's conception +of Paulinism. Here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably +explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. To the view +advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets +founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the Church, or on a +prophetic succession (Euseb, H. E. V. 17. 4; Proculus in the same author, II. +25. 7: III. 31. 4), nor that Tertullian, when it suits him, simply regards the +new prophecy as a <i>restitutio</i> (<i>e.g.</i>, in Monog. 4); for these assumptions +merely +represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this phenomenon within the Catholic +Church. In proof of the fact that Montanus appealed to the Gospel of John see +Jerome, Ep. 41 (Migne I. p. 474), which begins with the words: "Testimonia de +Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in +quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc." +In opposition to this Jerome argues that the promises about the Paraclete are fulfilled +in Acts II., as Peter said in his speech, and then continues as follows: +"Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et +prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores +et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos. etc."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote205" name="footnote205"></a><b>Footnote 205:</b><a href="#footnotetag205"> (return) </a><p> +We are assured of this not only by Tertullian, but also by the Roman Montanist +Proculus, who, like the former, argued against heretics, and by the testimony +of the Church Fathers (see, <i>e.g.</i>, Philos. VIII. 19). It was chiefly on the ground +of their orthodoxy that Tertullian urged the claim of the new prophets to a hearing; +and it was, above all, as a Montanist that he felt himself capable of combating the +Gnostics, since the Paraclete not only confirmed the <i>regula</i>, but also by +unequivocal +utterances cleared up ambiguous and obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, and +(as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the Monarchian (see fuga 1, 14; +corona 4; virg. vel. 1: Prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, II). +Besides, we see from Tertullian's writings that the secession of the Montanist +conventicles from the Church was forced upon them.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote206" name="footnote206"></a><b>Footnote 206:</b><a href="#footnotetag206"> (return) </a><p> The question as to whether the new prophecy had or had not to be recognised +as such became the decisive one (fuga 1, 14; coron. 1; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 1: +pudic. 11; monog. 1). This prophecy was recorded in writing (Euseb., V. 18. 1; +Epiph., H. 48. 10; Euseb., VI. 20). The putting of this question, however, denoted +a fundamental weakening of conviction, which was accompanied by a corresponding +falling off in the application of the prophetic utterances.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote207" name="footnote207"></a><b>Footnote 207:</b><a href="#footnotetag207"> (return) </a><p> The situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion +of Christendom may be studied in Tertullian's writings "de idolol." and "de +spectac." Christianity had already been conceived as a <i>nova lex</i> throughout the +whole Church, and this <i>lex</i> had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on +the faith. But, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite <i>lex</i>, and +arguments +in favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the Holy +Scriptures. No divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the +progressive secularising of Christianity; but there was need of statutory commandments +by which all the limits were clearly defined. In this state of perplexity the +oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to +justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. More than +that—as may be inferred from Tertullian's unwilling confession—could not be +attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. Thus the +Phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real +connection with it. But this was the form in which Montanism first became a +factor in the history of the Church. To what extent it had been so before, particularly +as regards the creation of a New Testament canon (in Asia Minor and Rome), +cannot be made out with certainty.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote208" name="footnote208"></a><b>Footnote 208:</b><a href="#footnotetag208"> (return) </a><p>See Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 82-108.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote209" name="footnote209"></a><b>Footnote 209:</b><a href="#footnotetag209"> (return) </a><p> +This is the point about which Tertullian's difficulties are greatest. Tatian is +expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote210" name="footnote210"></a><b>Footnote 210:</b><a href="#footnotetag210"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: "qui potest capere +capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote211" name="footnote211"></a><b>Footnote 211:</b><a href="#footnotetag211"> (return) </a><p> +It is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace Tertullian's +endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy +is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the New +Testament and yet supersedes it. He is forced to maintain the theory that the +Paraclete stands in the same relation to the Apostles as Christ does to Moses, +and that he abrogates the concessions made by the Apostles and even by Christ +himself; whilst he is at the same time obliged to reassert the sufficiency of both +Testaments. In connection with this he hit upon the peculiar theory of stages in +revelation—a theory which, were it not a mere expedient in his case, one might +regard as the first faint trace of a historical view of the question. Still, this is +another case of a dilemma, furnishing theology with a conception that she has +cautiously employed in succeeding times, when brought face to face with certain +difficulties; see virg. vel. I; exhort. 6; monog. 2, 3, 14; resurr. 63. For the rest, +Tertullian is at bottom a Christian of the old stamp; the theory of any sort of +finality in revelation is of no use to him except in its bearing on heresy; for the +Spirit continually guides to all truth and works wherever he will. Similarly, his +only reason for not being an Encratite is that this mode of life had already been +adopted by heretics, and become associated with dualism. But the conviction that +all religion must have the character of a fixed <i>law</i> and presupposes +definite regulations—a +belief not emanating from primitive Christianity, but from Rome—bound +him to the Catholic Church. Besides, the contradictions with which he struggled +were by no means peculiar to him; in so far as the Montanist societies accepted the +Catholic regulations, they weighed on them all, and in all probability crushed them +out of existence. In Asia Minor, where the breach took place earlier, the sect held +its ground longer. In North Africa the residuum was a remarkable propensity to +visions, holy dreams, and the like. The feature which forms the peculiar characteristic +of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas is still found in a similar shape in +Cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine +African Acts of the Martyrs, dating from Valerian's time, which are unfortunately +little studied. See, above all, the Acta Jacobi, Mariani etc., and the Acta Montani, +Lucii etc. (Ruinart, Acta Mart. edit Ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote212" name="footnote212"></a><b>Footnote 212:</b><a href="#footnotetag212"> (return) </a><p> Nothing is known of attempts at a formal incorporation of the Oracles with +the New Testament. Besides, the Montanists could dispense with this because they +distinguished the commandments of the Paraclete as "novissima lex" from the +"novum testamentum." The preface to the Montanist Acts of Perpetua and +Felicitas (was Tertullian the author?) showed indeed the high value attached to the +visions of martyrs. In so far as these were to be read in the Churches they were +meant to be reckoned as an "instrumentum ecclesiæ" in the wider sense.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote213" name="footnote213"></a><b>Footnote 213:</b><a href="#footnotetag213"> (return) </a><p> +Here the bishops themselves occupy the foreground (there are complaints about +their cowardice and serving of two masters in the treatise <i>de fugo</i>). But it would +be very unjust simply to find fault with them as Tertullian does. Two interests +combined to influence their conduct; for if they drew the reins tight they gave +over their flock to heresy or heathenism. This situation is already evident in +Hermas and dominates the resolutions of the Church leaders in succeeding +generations (see below).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote214" name="footnote214"></a><b>Footnote 214:</b><a href="#footnotetag214"> (return) </a><p> +The distinction of "Spiritales" and "Psychici" on the part of the Montanists +is not confined to the West (see Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93); we find it very +frequently in Tertullian. In itself it did not yet lead to the formal breach with +the Catholic Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote215" name="footnote215"></a><b>Footnote 215:</b><a href="#footnotetag215"> (return) </a><p> +A contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in +primitive Montanism. This was transmitted in a weakened form to the later +adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the Gallic confessors' strange letter of recommendation +on behalf of Irenæus in Euseb., H. E. V. 4), and finally broke forth +with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. +21; de exhort. 7; Hippolytus against Calixtus). The <i>ecclesia</i>, represented as +<i>numerus +episcoporum</i>, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote216" name="footnote216"></a><b>Footnote 216:</b><a href="#footnotetag216"> (return) </a><p> +See here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where Tertullian sees the virginity of the +Church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. As will have +been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether Montanism was an +innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. In its +original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a +period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had +yet been set to subjective religiosity. Montanus decidedly went further than any +Christian prophets known to us; Hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a +prophet, which gave rise to innovations in Christendom; but these fell short of +Montanus' proceedings. In its later shape, however, Montanism was to all intents +and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of +things. So far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a <i>novissima +lex</i>, we have an evident innovation analogous to the Catholic development. Whereas +in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict +principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with +exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode +of life. Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception +of a subsequent revelation through the Paraclete was a highly questionable and +strange innovation. But for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this +was ultimately nothing but a means. Its practical tendency, based as it was on +the conviction that the Church abandons her character if she does not resist gross +secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary +requirements of primitive Christianity in opposition to a Church that was always +more and more becoming a new thing.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote217" name="footnote217"></a><b>Footnote 217:</b><a href="#footnotetag217"> (return) </a><p> There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes +of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all +those who had strict views as to the principles of Christian polity; see the letters +of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. Melito, the prophet, eunuch, and +bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a Montanist. +We must judge similarly of Irenæus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote218" name="footnote218"></a><b>Footnote 218:</b><a href="#footnotetag218"> (return) </a><p> +Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subsequently +subjected to sharp criticism.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote219" name="footnote219"></a><b>Footnote 219:</b><a href="#footnotetag219"> (return) </a><p>This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote220" name="footnote220"></a><b>Footnote 220:</b><a href="#footnotetag220"> (return) </a><p>De ieiun. 12, 16.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote221" name="footnote221"></a><b>Footnote 221:</b><a href="#footnotetag221"> (return) </a><p>Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote222" name="footnote222"></a><b>Footnote 222:</b><a href="#footnotetag222"> (return) </a><p> It is well known that in the 3rd century the Revelation of John itself was +viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the East.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote223" name="footnote223"></a><b>Footnote 223:</b><a href="#footnotetag223"> (return) </a><p> +In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist +struggle. Chiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. +In the East, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened +by the Montanist crisis. But it was philosophical theology that first proved their +mortal enemy. In the rural Churches of Egypt Chiliasm was still widely prevalent +after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of Eusebius' +Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. "Some of their teachers," says Dionysius, "look +on the Law and the Prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the Gospel, esteem the +Epistles of the Apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine +contained in the Revelation of John to be a great and a hidden mystery." There +were even temporary disruptions in the Egyptian Church on account of Chiliasm +(see Chap. 24. 6).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote224" name="footnote224"></a><b>Footnote 224:</b><a href="#footnotetag224"> (return) </a><p> "Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem" now became the motto. Churchmen spoke +of a "completus numerus prophetarum" (Muratorian Fragment), and formulated the +proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-Christian stage of revelation, +but the Apostles to the Christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age +was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the Spirit. "Prophets and Apostles" +now replaced "Apostles, prophets, and teachers," as the court of appeal. Under +such circumstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of +a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the Apostles +in point of importance. Hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at +most served only to support the measures of the bishops. In order to estimate the +great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of Irenæus +and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenæus still expressed himself +exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4: V. 6. 1): +καθως και +πολλων ακουομεν αδελφων 'εν τη εκκλησια προφητικα χαρισματα εχοντων κ.τ.λ. Origen +on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back +to a period after which the Spirit's gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very +characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the +world, the disappearance of charisms, and the struggle against Gnosticism, a strictly +ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is +especially instructive on this point. Here it is revealed to the confessor Attalus that +the confessor Alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of +living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which +God had created and thus become a "τυπος σκανδαλου" to others. Alcibiades changed +his mode of life. In Africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still +retained their authority in the Church as important means of solving perplexities.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote225" name="footnote225"></a><b>Footnote 225:</b><a href="#footnotetag225"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates "septem maculas capitalium delictorum," +namely, "idololatria," "blasphemia," "homicidium," "adulterium," "stuprum," +"falsum testimonium," "fraus." The stricter treatment probably applied to all these +seven offences. So far as I know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same +category in the first centuries; see Iren. III. 4. 2: Tertull., de præscr. 30 and, above +all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 12, from which +passages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote226" name="footnote226"></a><b>Footnote 226:</b><a href="#footnotetag226"> (return) </a><p> Hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine +revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross +sinners into the Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the +last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in +my article "Lapsi," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullian's +Schriften de pænit. et de pudic. mit Rücksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; +Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote227" name="footnote227"></a><b>Footnote 227:</b><a href="#footnotetag227"> (return) </a><p> +In the work de pænit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. +K. Müller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892, p. 114, rightly remarks: "He who desired +this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her 'antechamber' +indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. This, however, did not exclude +the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of +those possessing full Christian privileges,—after the performance of penance or +<i>exhomologesis</i>. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. +Meanwhile +this <i>exhomologesis</i> itself underwent a transformation which in Tertullian +includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. It is no longer a mere expression +of inward feeling, confession to God and the brethren, but is essentially performance. +It is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy God by +works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily +endured punishment and therefore as a substitute for the penalty that naturally +awaits the sinner. It is thus the means of pacifying God, appeasing his anger, +and gaining his favour again—with the consequent possibility of readmission into +the Church. I say the <i>possibility</i>, for readmission does not always follow. +Participation +in the future kingdom may be hoped for even by him who in this world is +shut out from full citizenship and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. +In all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death +in a state of penance or <i>exhomologesis</i>. For readmission continued to involve the +assumption that the Church had in some way or other become <i>certain</i> that God +had forgiven the sinner, or in other words that she had power to grant this +forgiveness in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore +involved no violation of her holiness." In such instances it is first prophets +and then martyrs that appear as organs of the Spirit, till at last it is no longer +the inspired Christian, but the professional medium of the Spirit, viz., the priest, +who decides everything.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote228" name="footnote228"></a><b>Footnote 228:</b><a href="#footnotetag228"> (return) </a><p> In the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repetition of baptism were +not wholly lacking. In Marcionite congregations repetition of baptism is said to +have taken place (on the Elkesaites see Vol. I. p. 308). One can only wonder that there +is not more frequent mention of such attempts. The assertion of Hippolytus +(Philos. IX. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: Επι Καλλιστου προτω τετολμηται δευτερον +αυτοις βαπτισμα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote229" name="footnote229"></a><b>Footnote 229:</b><a href="#footnotetag229"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertull., de pudic. 12: "hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini +pax ab ecclesiis redditur." Orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote230" name="footnote230"></a><b>Footnote 230:</b><a href="#footnotetag230"> (return) </a><p> +It is only of whoremongers and idolaters that Tertullian expressly speaks in +de pudic. c. I. We must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by +Hippolytus in Philos. IX. 12: Καλλιστος πρωτος τα προς τας 'ηδονας τοις +ανθρωποις +συνχωρειν επενοησε, λεγων πασιν 'υπ' αυτου αφιεσθαι 'αμαρτιας. The aim of this +measure is still clear from the account of it given by Hippolytus, though this indeed +is written in a hostile spirit. Roman Christians were then split into at least five +different sects, and Calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties +and enlarge his own. In all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a +certain measure of success. From Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 6, one might be inclined +to conclude that, even in Marcus Aurelius' time, Dionysius of Corinth had issued +lax injunctions similar to those of Calixtus. But it must not be forgotten that we +have nothing but Eusebius' report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his +accounts are not reliable.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote231" name="footnote231"></a><b>Footnote 231:</b><a href="#footnotetag231"> (return) </a><p> No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 +and 260.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote232" name="footnote232"></a><b>Footnote 232:</b><a href="#footnotetag232"> (return) </a><p>See Cypr., de lapsis.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote233" name="footnote233"></a><b>Footnote 233:</b><a href="#footnotetag233"> (return) </a><p> +What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters +in Cyprian's collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote234" name="footnote234"></a><b>Footnote 234:</b><a href="#footnotetag234"> (return) </a><p> +Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, H. E. V. 22, is our chief source +of information on this point. See also Conc. Illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, +70-73, 75.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote235" name="footnote235"></a><b>Footnote 235:</b><a href="#footnotetag235"> (return) </a><p> See my article "Novatian" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. One +might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness +of sins was an "evangelical reaction" against the merciless legalism which, +in the case of the Gentile Church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. +As a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the New Testament in +justification of their practice. This had already been done by the followers of +Calixtus and by himself. See Philos. IX. 12: φασκοντες Χριστον αφιεναι τοις +ευδοκουσι; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertullian's +opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to +numerous Bible texts, <i>e.g.</i>, Matt. X. 23: XI. 19 etc., see de monog, de pudic., de +ieiun. Cyprian is also able to quote many passages from the Gospels. However, +as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but +rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for +the future, the "evangelical reaction" must not be estimated very highly; (see +below, p. 117, and my essay in the Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I., +"Die ehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche.")</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote236" name="footnote236"></a><b>Footnote 236:</b><a href="#footnotetag236"> (return) </a><p> +The distinction of sins committed against God himself, as we find it in Tertullian, +Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot +clear up.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote237" name="footnote237"></a><b>Footnote 237:</b><a href="#footnotetag237"> (return) </a><p> Cyprian never expelled any one from the Church, unless he had attacked the +authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this Father placed himself +outside her pale by his own act.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote238" name="footnote238"></a><b>Footnote 238:</b><a href="#footnotetag238"> (return) </a><p> +Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: Και παραβολην των ζιζανιων προς τουτο εφη 'ο Καλλιστος +λεγεσθαι. Αφετε τα ζιζανια συναυξειν τω σιτω, τουτεστιν εν τη εκκλησια τους +'αμαρτανοντας. Αλλα και την κιβωτον του Νωε εις 'ομοιωμα εκκλησιας εφη γεγονεναι, +εν 'η και κυνες και λυκοι και κορακες και παντα τα καθαρα και ακαθαρτα; 'ουτω +φασκων δειν ειναι εν εκκλησια 'ομοιως, και 'οσα προς τουτο δυνατος ην συναγειν +'ουτως 'ηρμηνευσεν. From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even +before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. +("Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens +in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non +fuit, in ecclesia non sit"). But we do not know what form this took and what +inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of the +multitudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark +is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it +required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution +always started fresh questions. Orig. (Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark +as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., +Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he +rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained—at any rate +he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in +the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus' +conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. +VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in +the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote239" name="footnote239"></a><b>Footnote 239:</b><a href="#footnotetag239"> (return) </a><p> +Philos., l.c.: Καλλιστος εδογματισεν 'οπως ει επισκοπος 'αμαρτοι τι, ει και προς +θανατον, μη δειν κατατιθεσθαι. That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident +from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that Stephen +also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other +failings.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote240" name="footnote240"></a><b>Footnote 240:</b><a href="#footnotetag240"> (return) </a><p>See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote241" name="footnote241"></a><b>Footnote 241:</b><a href="#footnotetag241"> (return) </a><p> +This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to +declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and +takes part in the offering celebrated by him.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote242" name="footnote242"></a><b>Footnote 242:</b><a href="#footnotetag242"> (return) </a><p> +On this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in Cyprian. Sometimes he says +that God himself installs the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against God +to criticise them (<i>e.g.</i>, in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the +bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears +to acknowledge the community's right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections +referring to Cyprian in Reuter's "Augustinische Studien" (Zeitschrift für +Kirchengeschichte, +Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote243" name="footnote243"></a><b>Footnote 243:</b><a href="#footnotetag243"> (return) </a><p> +The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of +his two aspects.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote244" name="footnote244"></a><b>Footnote 244:</b><a href="#footnotetag244"> (return) </a><p> +Origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the Church as +judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (Comm. in Matt. +Tom. XI. at Chap. XV. 29; Hom. II. in Genes. Chap. 3; Hom. in Cantic. Tom. I. +at Chap. I. 4: "ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt +adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt"; Hom. III. in Levit. Chap. iii.), +but also between spiritual and carnal members (Hom. XXVI. in Num. Chap. vii.) +<i>i.e.</i>, +between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith—who +outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief +nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does +Clement of Alexandria (see Strom. VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the +Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem: they have no part in the promises of Christ, +but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church's task to remove +such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus' view of +the Church as a <i>corpus permixtum</i>; but to carry out this process so perfectly that +only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond the powers of human sagacity. +One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see Hom. XXI. +in Jos., c. i.: "sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus +et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum +purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque +peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla +prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes +zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super iis dici potest, in quibus +vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt.... Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum +peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia +neminem possumus." In this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the +Church (Comm. in Matt. T. X. at c. xiii. 47 f.: μη ξενιζομεθα, εαν 'ορωμεν +'ημων +τα αθροισματα πεπληρωμενα και πονηρων); <i>but in his work against Celsus Origen +already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the Christian Churches +which views them as simply "better" than the societies and civic communities existing +alongside of them</i>. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus, +in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth, +and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of +these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In +conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly asserts that a person +unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in God's eyes; see +Hom. XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: "ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intussit, et +ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri." Döllinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page +254 ff.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hippolytus +and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen's trenchant +remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth. +XI. 9. 15; XII. 9-14; XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, <i>e.g.</i>, de orat. 28, Hom. VI. in +Isai c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to +glorify God, assume a mere distinction of names between Father and Son, are also +correctly regarded by Langen as specially referring to the Roman ecclesiastics +(Geschichte der römischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three +greatest theologians of the age—Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote245" name="footnote245"></a><b>Footnote 245:</b><a href="#footnotetag245"> (return) </a><p> +If, in assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, +the Roman bishops went beyond Cyprian, Cyprian drew from his conception of the +Church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism +administered by non-Catholics. Here, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops were +only determined by their interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission +to the Church in the case of non-Catholics. In this instance they were again +induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of +the Church. It redounds to Cyprian's credit that he drew and firmly maintained +the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. The matter +never led to a great <i>dogmatic</i> controversy.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote246" name="footnote246"></a><b>Footnote 246:</b><a href="#footnotetag246"> (return) </a><p> As to the events during the vacancy in the Roman see immediately before +Novatian's schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member +of the Church, see my essay: "Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der +Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250" (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote247" name="footnote247"></a><b>Footnote 247:</b><a href="#footnotetag247"> (return) </a><p> +So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer +treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case +of the lapsed. It is, however, very probable that in the later Novatian Churches +no mortal sinner was absolved (see, <i>e.g.</i>, Socrates, H. E. I. 10). The statement of +Ambrosius (de pænit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and +lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the +truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as "a Stoic" +made no distinction between sins. Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian's +followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline +and intercession of the Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote248" name="footnote248"></a><b>Footnote 248:</b><a href="#footnotetag248"> (return) </a><p> +The title of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of Christ) in +contrast to that of ordinary Catholic Christians, a designation which we first find +among the Encratites (see Vol. I. p. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv. +Marc. IV. 14: "Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem +doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc."), and +then in Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de pænit., +de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de +ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, 11; see Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l'empire Romain +de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: "Chrétiens intransigeants et Chrétiens +opportunistes") was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: "si Novatiani +se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur"; 46. 2: "nec putetis, sic vos +evangelium Christi adserere"). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. II calls +Novatian: 'ο εκδικητης του ευαγγελιου. This is exceedingly instructive, +and all the +more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it +was not the "evangelical," but the lax, who declared the claims of the Gospel to +be satisfied if they kept God in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity +with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de pænit. 5: "Sed aiunt quidam, +satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se +salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc.": de +ieiun. 2: "Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile +dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam +me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum +et intestinorum meorum inanitate." The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly +understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote249" name="footnote249"></a><b>Footnote 249:</b><a href="#footnotetag249"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote250" name="footnote250"></a><b>Footnote 250:</b><a href="#footnotetag250"> (return) </a><p> From Socrates' Ecclesiastical History we can form a good idea of the state +of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later +history of the Catharist Church see my article "Novatian," l.c., 667 ff. The most +remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian's adherents in +Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner +of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians +were nevertheless very bitterly attacked.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote251" name="footnote251"></a><b>Footnote 251:</b><a href="#footnotetag251"> (return) </a><p>This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote252" name="footnote252"></a><b>Footnote 252:</b><a href="#footnotetag252"> (return) </a><p> +This last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the +East—as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical +History. For a time the majority of the Oriental bishops adopted an attitude +favourable to Novatian and unfavourable to Cornelius and Cyprian. Then they +espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in +all cases (see the canons of Ancyra and Neocæsarea IV. sæc. init.). Throughout +the East the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided +in accordance with clear principles. In giving up the last remnant of her exclusiveness +(the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Arles are lax), the Church +became "Catholic" in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community +where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain +regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church's pre-eminent importance +for society and the state assured. It was no longer variance, and no longer +the sword (Matt. X. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now +capable of becoming an educative or, since there was little more to educate in the +older society, a conservative power. At an earlier date the Apologists (Justin, +Melito, Tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till +now that she really possessed this capacity. Among Christians, first the Encratites +and Marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the Novatians +had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the +transformation of the Church into a political commonwealth. Their demands had +progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown +ever weaker. But, in view of the continuous secularising of Christendom, the +Montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less +than those of the Encratites about the middle of the second, and no more than +those of the Novatians about the middle of the third. The Church resolutely +declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible +law for all, and overthrew her opponents. She pressed on in her world-wide +mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her +bounds. Thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical +perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without +threatening her existence. "What is monasticism but an ecclesiastical institution that +makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the Church, +to separate oneself from the outward Church without renouncing her, to set oneself +apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her +members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the Church?" +In succeeding times great Church movements, such as the Montanist and Novatian, +only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. See the movement +at Rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so +little (Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischofe, pp. 250-255), the Donatist +Revolution, and the Audiani in the East.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote253" name="footnote253"></a><b>Footnote 253:</b><a href="#footnotetag253"> (return) </a><p> +It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullian's de ieiun. does <i>not</i> assume +that the great mass of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote254" name="footnote254"></a><b>Footnote 254:</b><a href="#footnotetag254"> (return) </a><p> The condition of the constitution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd +century (in accordance with Cyprian's epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, l.c., +pp. 142-237. Parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular +society are to be found throughout.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote255" name="footnote255"></a><b>Footnote 255:</b><a href="#footnotetag255"> (return) </a><p> To how great an extent the Church in Decius' time was already a state +within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian's 55th epistle +(c. 9.): "Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: +cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum +multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam +constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem." On the other hand the legislation with regard +to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mélanges +Renier: Le Concile d'Elvire et les flamines chrétiens, 1886) has demonstrated, +most probably dates from before the Diocletian persecution of 300, shows how +closely the discipline of the Church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations +in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems +within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the +Κεστοι of Julius Africanus, +and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen's +works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. We +may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid +in the 3rd century, though the "religion of the second order" did not become a +recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote256" name="footnote256"></a><b>Footnote 256:</b><a href="#footnotetag256"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertullian's frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against +the "Psychici", <i>i.e.</i>, the Catholic Christians. He says that with them the saying +had really come to signify "peccando promeremur," by which, however, he does +not mean the Augustinian: "o felix culpa."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote257" name="footnote257"></a><b>Footnote 257:</b><a href="#footnotetag257"> (return) </a><p> +The relation of this Church to theology, what theology she required and what +she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted +may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. We may here also direct attention to the +peculiar position of Origen in the Church as well as to that of Lucian the Martyr, +concerning whom Alexander of Alexandria (Theoderet, H. E. I. 3) remarks that he +was a αποσυναγωγος in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three +successive bishops.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote258" name="footnote258"></a><b>Footnote 258:</b><a href="#footnotetag258"> (return) </a><p> We have already referred to the passage above. On account of its importance +we may quote it here:</p> + +<p>"According to Celsus Apollo required the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as +a god; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one ... They +would therefore not obey Apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed +in the divinity of Aristeas. But with regard to Jesus we may say that it proved +a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the Son of God, as God who +appeared on earth united with body and soul." Origen then says that the demons +counterworked this belief, and continues: "But God who had sent Jesus on earth brought +to nought all the snares and plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the Gospel of +Jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration +of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of Churches which +are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the Churches of the superstitious, +the dissolute and the unbelieving. For of such people the civil population +(πολιτευομενα εν ταις εκκλησιαις των πολεων πληθη) +of the towns almost everywhere consists." +'Αι δε του Θεου Χριστω μαθητευθεσαι εκκλησιαι, συνεζεταζομεναι +ταις ων παροικουσι +δημων εκκλησιαις, 'ως φωτηρες εισιν εν κοσμω. τις γαρ ουκ αν 'ομολογησαι, και τους +χειρους των απο της εκκλησιας και συγκρισει βελτιονων ελαττους πολλω κρειττους +τυγξ'ανειν των εν τοις δεμοις εκκλησιων; εκκλησια μεν γαρ του θεου, φερ' ειπειν, 'η +Αθηναεσι πραεια τις και ευσταθης, 'ατε Θεω αρεσκειν τω επι πασι βουλομενη; 'η +δ' Αθηναιων εκκλησια στασιωδης και ουδαμως παραβαλλομενη τη εκει εκκλησια του +Θεου; το δ' αυτο ερεις, περι εκκλησιας του Θεου της εν Κορινθω και της εκκλησιας +του +δημον Κορινθιων; και, φερ' ειπειν, περι εκκλησιας του Θεου της εν Αλεξανδρεια, και +εκκλησιας του Αλεξανδρεων δημου, και εαν ευγνωμων 'η 'ο τουτου ακουων και φιλαληθως +εξεταζη τα πραγματα, θαυμασεται τον και βουλευσαμενον και ανουσαι δυνηθεντα +πανταχου συστησασθαι εκκλησιας του Θεου, παροικουσας εκκλησιας των καθ' 'εκαστην +πολιν δημων 'ουτω δε και βουλην εκκλησιας Θεου βουλη τη καθ' 'εκαστην πολιν συνεξεταζων +'ευροις αν 'οτι τινες μεν της εκκλησιας βουλευται εξιοι εισι—ει τις εστιν εν +τω παντι πολις του Θεου—εν εκεινη πολιτευεσθαι 'οι δε πανταχου βουλευται +ουδεν εξιον +της εκ καταταξεως 'υπεροχης, 'ην 'υπερεχειν δοκουσι των πολιτων, φερουσιν εν τοις +'εαυτων +ηθεσιν; 'ουτω δε και αρχοντα εκκλησιας 'εκαστης πολεως αρχοντι των εν τη πολει +συγκροτεον; 'ινα κατανοησυς, 'οτι και επι των σφοδρα αποτυγχανομενοω βουλετων και +αρχοντων εκκλησιας Θεου, και ρ'αθυμοτερον παρα τους ευτονωτερως βιουντας ουδεν +ηττον εστιν 'ευρειν 'ως επιπαν 'υπεροχην την εν τη επι τας αρετας προκοπη παρα τα +ηθη των εν ταις πολεσι βουλευτων και αρχοντων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote259" name="footnote259"></a><b>Footnote 259:</b><a href="#footnotetag259"> (return) </a><p> Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, +560, 576. Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231. Hatch "Organisation of the +early Christian Church," Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. "Ordination," "Priest," in the +Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. "Priester" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, +2nd ed. Voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff. +Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote260" name="footnote260"></a><b>Footnote 260:</b><a href="#footnotetag260"> (return) </a><p> Clement of Rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship +in Christian Churches with the priests and Levites, and the author of the Διδαχη +was the first to liken the Christian prophets to the high priests. It cannot, however, +be shown that there were any Christian circles where the leaders were directly +styled "priests" before the last quarter of the 2nd century. We can by no means +fall back on Ignatius, Philad. 9, nor on Iren., IV. 8. 3, which passage is rather +to be compared with Διδ. 13. 3. It is again different in Gnostic circles, which +in +this case, too, anticipated the secularising process: read for example the description +of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, we have the later Catholic +bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person +powers of grace are attached—the formula of bestowal was: μεταδουναι σοι θελω +της εμης χαριτος ... λαμβανε απ' εμου και δι' εμου χαριν, and through whose +instrumentality union with God can alone be attained: the απολυτρωσις (I. 21.) is +only conferred through the mystagogue. Much of a similar nature is to be found, +and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen +was of fundamental importance in many Gnostic societies (see also the writings of +the Coptic Gnostics); it was different in the Marcionite Church. Tertullian (de +bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop "summus sacerdos," and the older opinion +that he merely "played" with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian, +de aleat. 2 ("sacerdotalis dignitas"). In his Antimontanist writings the former has +repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly class +among Christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order +(de exhort. 7: "nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? ... adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis +non est consessus, et offeis et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, +ecclesia est, licet laici."; de monog. 7). We may perhaps infer from his works +that before about the year 200, the name "priest" was not yet universally applied +to bishop and presbyters in Carthage (but see after this de præscr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia +munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: +sacerdotalis ordo, ibid. 11 "et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas +duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum; de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium;" +Scorp. 7: sacerdos). The latest writings of Tertullian show us indeed that the +name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. Hippolytus +(Philos. præf.: 'ων 'ημεις διαδοχοι τυγχανοντες της τε αυτης χαριτος +μετεχοντες +αρχιερατειας και διδασκαλιας, see also the Arabian canons) expressly claimed high +priesthood for the bishops, and Origen thought he was justified in giving the +name of "Priests and Levites" to those who conducted public worship among +Christians. This he indeed did with reserve (see many passages, <i>e.g.</i>, Hom. II. in +Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Hom. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment, in Joh., Vol. +I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). In +Cyprian and the literature of the Greek Church in the immediately following period +we find the designation "priest" as the regular and most customary name for the +bishop and presbyters. Novatian (Jerome, de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise <i>de +sacerdote</i> and another <i>de ordinatione</i>. The notable and momentous change of +conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages +almost as little as the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. Irenæus +(IV. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and Tertullian, when compared with Cyprian, appear here +as representatives of primitive Christianity. They firmly assert the priesthood of +the whole congregation. That the laity had as great a share as the leaders of +the Churches in the transformation of the latter into Priests is moreover shown +by the bitter saying of Tertullian (de monog. 12): "Sed cum extollimur et inflamur +adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia 'sacerdotes +nos deo et patri fecit'. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, +deponimus infulas."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote261" name="footnote261"></a><b>Footnote 261:</b><a href="#footnotetag261"> (return) </a><p>See Sohm, I. p. 207.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote262" name="footnote262"></a><b>Footnote 262:</b><a href="#footnotetag262"> (return) </a><p> +The "deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare" (Cypr. ep. 67. 1) is the +distinctive function of the <i>sacerdos dei</i>. It may further be said, however, that +<i>all</i> +ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and Cyprian has moreover +contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the Church follows +from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is <i>antistes Christi</i> (dei); +see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to +preserve the <i>lex evangelica</i> and the <i>traditio dominica</i> in every respect. +As <i>antistes +dei</i> however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and +the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers +the right to judge in Christ's stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In +Cyprian's conception of the episcopal office the <i>successio apostolica</i> and the +position +of vicegerent of Christ (of God) counterbalance each other; he also tried to +amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: "cathedra sacerdotalis"). It is evident that as +far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily +proved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apostolical +succession of the bishops never received such pronounced expression as in +Rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from +the end of the 3rd century. Ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in +his position towards the individual community, with God and Christ. He, however, +is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities +based on a mysterious transference.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote263" name="footnote263"></a><b>Footnote 263:</b><a href="#footnotetag263"> (return) </a><p> +Soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a class +of inferior clergy. This was first the case in Rome. This development was not +uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in Texte +und Untersuchungen II. 5). Yet Sohm, l.c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed +modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the <i>ordines minores</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote264" name="footnote264"></a><b>Footnote 264:</b><a href="#footnotetag264"> (return) </a><p> Along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which Cyprian already +understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to Deut. XVII. 12; +1 Sam. VIII. 7; Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.; Acts XXIII. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, +59. 66), other Old Testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. Thus +the commandment of tithes, which Irenæus had still asserted to be abolished, was +now for the first time established (see Origen; Constit. Apost. and <i>my</i> remarks on +Διδ. c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted +(see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.). Constantine was the +first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath. +Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In +Cyprian's time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere +upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still +continued to be made here and there.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote265" name="footnote265"></a><b>Footnote 265:</b><a href="#footnotetag265"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian (de pud. I) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome "pontifex maximus," +thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the +episcopal office. With the picture of the bishop drawn by the Apostolic constitutions +may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of Paul of Samosata in Euseb., VII. 30.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote266" name="footnote266"></a><b>Footnote 266:</b><a href="#footnotetag266"> (return) </a><p> +Yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively +late period. But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the +priests alone are possessed of knowledge. As μαθησις and +μυσταγωγια are inseparably +connected in the mysteries and Gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was +at once knowing one and priest, so also in the Catholic Church the priest is accounted +the knowing one. Doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote267" name="footnote267"></a><b>Footnote 267:</b><a href="#footnotetag267"> (return) </a><p> +Examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. But see Iren., +IV. 26. 2, who is little behind Cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders +with the fate of Dathan and Abiram. One of the immediate results of the formation +of a priestly and spiritual class was that the independent "teachers" now +shared the fate of the old "prophets" and became extinct (see my edition of the +Διδαχη, prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is an instructive fact that +Theoktistus of Cæsarea +and Alexander of Jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to Demetrius +that independent teachers were still tolerated, <i>i.e.</i>, allowed to speak in +public meetings +of the Church, could only appeal to the practice of Phrygia and Lycaonia, that +is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, Montanism had its original +seat. Euelpis in Laranda, Paulinus in Iconium, and Theodorus in Synnada, who +flourished about 216, are in addition to Origen the last independent teachers +(<i>i.e.</i>, +outside the ranks of the clergy) known to us in Christendom (Euseb., H. E. VI. 19 fin.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote268" name="footnote268"></a><b>Footnote 268:</b><a href="#footnotetag268"> (return) </a><p> +See Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, +1826. Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, +Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, +p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art. "Messe" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. It is idle +to enquire whether the conception of the "sacerdotium" or that of the "sacrificium" +was first altered, because they are correlative ideas.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote269" name="footnote269"></a><b>Footnote 269:</b><a href="#footnotetag269"> (return) </a><p> +See the proof passages in Höfling, l.c., who has also treated in detail Clement +and Origen's idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenæus IV. 18. 3: +"Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia +eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare +deum quasi ab amico" (on the offering in the Lord's Supper see Iren. IV. 17. 5, +18. 1); Tertull., Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22; IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; +de virg. vel. 13.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote270" name="footnote270"></a><b>Footnote 270:</b><a href="#footnotetag270"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise <i>de ieiunio</i> is the most important +among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. On the use of the word +"satisfacere" and the new ideas on the point which arose in the West (cf. also the +word "meritum") see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th Vol. Note +that the 2nd Ep. of Clement already contains the sayings: καλον ελεημουνη 'ως +μετανοια 'αμαρτιας κρεισσων νηστεια προσευχης, ελεημοσυνη δε αμφοτερων ... ελεημοσυνη +γαρ κουφισμα 'αμαρτιας γινεται (16. 4; similar expressions occur in the +"Shepherd"). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions +borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no +effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea +that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful God. Martyrdom seems +to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian's +time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment +in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: δυο συνεστη τα αφεσιν αμαρτηματα παρεχομενα, +παθος δια Χριστον και βαπτισμα), had long been universally diffused and was also +exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits +of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long +before Tertullian's day, but was opposed by him (de pudic 22), when martyrs abused +the powers universally conceded to them. Origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad +mart. 50: 'ωσπερ τιμιω 'αιματι του Ιησου ηγορασθημεν ... 'ουτως τω τιμιω 'αιματι +των μαρτυρων αγορασθησονται τινες; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: "ne forte, ex quo martyres +non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum +nostrorum remissionem non mereamur." The origin of this thought is, on the one +hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent +man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that Christ himself suffered in +the martyrs (see, <i>e.g.</i>, ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1. 23, 41).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote271" name="footnote271"></a><b>Footnote 271:</b><a href="#footnotetag271"> (return) </a><p> +In the East it was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure +of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. See Bigg's beautiful +account in "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria," Lect. IV.-VI.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote272" name="footnote272"></a><b>Footnote 272:</b><a href="#footnotetag272"> (return) </a><p> Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: "Quomodo multæ mansiones +apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote273" name="footnote273"></a><b>Footnote 273:</b><a href="#footnotetag273"> (return) </a><p> See c. 1: "Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit +vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne +ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret: coartati eramus et in augustum +innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas +adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ +operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum +quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus." c. 2: "sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris +gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum +flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et +iugis operatic baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur." 5, 6, 9. +In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of +alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an +ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, +he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for God and Christ. In Cyprian's +epistles "satisfacere deo" is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important +to note the frequent use of the expression "promereri deum (iudicem)" in Cyprian. +See de unitate 15: "iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: +præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem." +18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de +bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. Here it is everywhere assumed that Christians +acquire God's favour by their works.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote274" name="footnote274"></a><b>Footnote 274:</b><a href="#footnotetag274"> (return) </a><p>Baptism with blood is not referred to here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote275" name="footnote275"></a><b>Footnote 275:</b><a href="#footnotetag275"> (return) </a><p> +With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine's +time down to the Catholicism of the present day. Cyprian is the father of the +Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not +yet familiar with the theory according to which man <i>must</i> acquire <i>merita</i>. +In his +mind "merits" and "blessedness" are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the +rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote276" name="footnote276"></a><b>Footnote 276:</b><a href="#footnotetag276"> (return) </a><p> +"Sacrificare," "sacrificium celebrare," in all passages where they are unaccompanied +by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Cyprian +has never called prayer a "sacrifice" without qualifying terms; on the contrary he +collocates "preces" and "sacrificium," and sometimes also "oblatio" and "sacrificium." +The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote277" name="footnote277"></a><b>Footnote 277:</b><a href="#footnotetag277"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: "Et quia passionis eius mentionem +in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod +offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus;" c. 9.: "unde apparet +sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici." 13; de unit. 17: "dominicæ +hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare;" ep. 63. 4: "sacramentum sacrificii +dominici." The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, +which, in all probability, Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based +on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically +sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the Christian offering assume, though +not visibly, the form of a bloody sacrifice, such as secularised Christianity desired. +This transference, however, was the result of two causes. The first has been +already rightly stated by Ernesti (Antimur. p. 94) in the words: "quia eucharistia +habet αναμνησιν Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea +paullatim +cœpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici." In Cyprian's 63rd epistle it is +still observable how the "calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius +offerre" passes over into the "sanguinem Christi offerre," see also Euseb. demonstr. +I. 13: μνημην της θυσιας Χριστου προσφερειν and την ενσαρκον +του Χριστου παρουσιαν +και το καταρτισθεν αυτου σωμα προσφερειν. The other cause has been specially +pointed out by Theodore Harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other +passages Cyprian expresses the thought "that in the Lord's Supper nothing else is +done <i>by</i> us but what the Lord has first done <i>for</i> us." But he says that at the +institution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to God the +Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ's stead only presents a true +and perfect offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: "si Christus +Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificiam +patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille +sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium +verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum +quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse"). This brings us to the conception of the +repetition of Christ's sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian's case it was still, so +to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, +abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from +it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the +"calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre" as identical with +it. As far as the East is concerned we find in Origen no trace of the assumption +of a repeated sacrifice of Christ. But in the original of the first 6 books of the +Apostolic Constitutions this conception is also wanting, although the Supper ceremonial +has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25: 'αι τοτε (in the +old covenant) θυσιαι, νυν ευχαι και δεησεις και ευχαριστιαι. II. 53). +The passage +VI. 23: αντι θυσιας της δι' 'αιματων την λογικην και αναιμακτον και την μυστικην, +'ητις εις τον θανατον του κυριου συμβολων χαριν επιτελειται του σωματος αυτου και +του 'αιματος does not belong to the original document, but to the interpolator. +With the exception therefore of one passage in the Apostolic Church order (printed +in my edition of the Didache prolegg. p. 236) viz.: 'η προσφορα του σωματος και +του 'αιματος, we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before +Eusebius' time of a sacrifice of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper. From this, +however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration +of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote278" name="footnote278"></a><b>Footnote 278:</b><a href="#footnotetag278"> (return) </a><p> +In ep. 63. 13 Cyprian has illustrated the incorporation of the community with +Christ by the mixture of wine and water in the Supper, because the special aim +of the epistle required this: "Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero +ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo +populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc." +The special mention of the offerers (see already Tertullian's works: de corona 3, +de exhort. cast. II, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend +themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On +the Praxis see Cyprian ep. I. 2 "... si quis hoc fecisset. non offerretur pro eo nee +sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur;" 62. 5: "ut fratres nostros in mente +habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus +repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote279" name="footnote279"></a><b>Footnote 279:</b><a href="#footnotetag279"> (return) </a><p> Much as the use of the word "sacramentum" in the Western Church from +Tertullian to Augustine (Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) +differs from that in the classic Romish use it is of small interest in the history of +dogma to trace its various details. In the old Latin Bible +μυστηριον was translated +"sacramentum" and thus the new signification "mysterious, holy ordinance or +thing" was added to the meaning "oath," "sacred obligation." Accordingly Tertullian +already used the word to denote sacred facts, mysterious and salutary signs +and vehicles, and also holy acts. Everything in any way connected with the Deity +and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, +is designated "sacrament;" and the word is also applied to the symbolical which +is always something mysterious and holy. Alongside of this the old meaning +"sacred obligation" still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use, +further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well +as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a "mystery" is nevertheless +of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed +not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the +supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more +than this was now intended; "sacramentum" (μυστηριον) was rather intended to +represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. This +conception, however, is opposed to the Judæo-Christian idea of revelation, and is +thus to be regarded as an introduction of the Greek notion. Probst (Sacramente +und Sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. That which is mysterious and dark +appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of +the New Testament Scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded +as altogether "spiritual." See Iren. II. 28. 1-3. Tert. de bapt. 2: "deus in stultitia +et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote280" name="footnote280"></a><b>Footnote 280:</b><a href="#footnotetag280"> (return) </a><p> We have explained above that the Church already possessed this means of +grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier +period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a +possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary +directions of the Spirit.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote281" name="footnote281"></a><b>Footnote 281:</b><a href="#footnotetag281"> (return) </a><p> +Höfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. "Taufe" in Herzog's +Real-Encyklopädie. Walch, Hist. pædobaptismi quattuor priorum sæculorum, 1739.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote282" name="footnote282"></a><b>Footnote 282:</b><a href="#footnotetag282"> (return) </a><p> +In de bono pudic. 2: "renati ex aqua et pudicitia," Pseudo-Cyprian expresses an +idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote283" name="footnote283"></a><b>Footnote 283:</b><a href="#footnotetag283"> (return) </a><p> +But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): "Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, +sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote284" name="footnote284"></a><b>Footnote 284:</b><a href="#footnotetag284"> (return) </a><p> +The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pædag. I, 6 (baptism and sonship) +are very important, but he did not follow them up. It is deserving of note that +the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the East than in +the West. But, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former +region.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote285" name="footnote285"></a><b>Footnote 285:</b><a href="#footnotetag285"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; Cypr., ep. 70. 2 ("ungi quoque necesse est eum +qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, <i>i.e.</i>, unctione +esse unctus dei et habere in se +gratiam Christi possit"), 74. 5 etc. "Chrism" is already found in Tertullian as well +as the laying on of hands. The Roman Catholic bishop Cornelius in the notorious +epistle to Fabius (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany +baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from Hippolytus' collection: see +can. arab. 19). After relating that Novatian in his illness had only received clinical +baptism he writes: ου μην ουδε των λοιπων ετυχε, διαφυγων την νοσον, 'ων χρη +μεταλαμβανειν κατα τον της εκκλησιας κανονα, του τε σφραγισθηναι +'υπο του επισκοπου. +It is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism +(Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. p. 439) calls the laying on of hands a +sacrament like baptism: "neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest +nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus +impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit +<i>utroque sacramento</i> debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica." +Among other particulars +found in Tertullian's work on baptism (cc. I. 12 seq.) it may moreover be +seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability +of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis +est). The assumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen), +is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the "sacrament" were still uncertain. +As to the objection that Jesus himself had not baptised and that the Apostles had +not received Christian baptism see Tert., de bapt. 11, 12.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote286" name="footnote286"></a><b>Footnote 286:</b><a href="#footnotetag286"> (return) </a><p> +In itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought +eagerly for mysteries. See Tertull., de bapt. 2: "Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes +hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, +quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, +sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter +pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur +consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana +de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote287" name="footnote287"></a><b>Footnote 287:</b><a href="#footnotetag287"> (return) </a><p> But see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands +on the part of the bishop communicates the Holy Spirit, and this ceremony <i>must</i> +therefore follow baptism. It is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not +become detached from baptism in the West till shortly before the middle of the +third century. Perhaps we may assume that the Mithras cult had an influence here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote288" name="footnote288"></a><b>Footnote 288:</b><a href="#footnotetag288"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertullian's superstitious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water +is the element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes +a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in Pitra, Anal, +Sacra II., p. 3 sq. Cyprian, ep. 70. I, uses the remarkable words: "oportet veio +mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a <i>sacer dote</i> +(Tertull. still knows nothing of this: +c. 17: etiam laicis ius est), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur +abluere." Ep. 74. 5: "peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, +nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum." Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10.99: +λαβετε 'υδωρ λογικος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote289" name="footnote289"></a><b>Footnote 289:</b><a href="#footnotetag289"> (return) </a><p> It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something +sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in +a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced +back to a philosophical doctrine.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote290" name="footnote290"></a><b>Footnote 290:</b><a href="#footnotetag290"> (return) </a><p> +<i>Translator's note.</i> The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. +Harnack: "Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim +necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ... veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; +veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum +nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius +agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur ... Si +qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote291" name="footnote291"></a><b>Footnote 291:</b><a href="#footnotetag291"> (return) </a><p> Under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in +the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see +Hermas: "the Church rests like the world upon water;" Irenæus III. 17. 2: "Sicut +de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unus panis, ita nec +nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et +sicut aricla terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum +aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria +pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem +acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum"). The unbaptised (catechumens) also +belong to the Church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. +Accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, +and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. In +this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of Constantinople (381) is instructive: +και την πρωτην 'ημεραν ποιουμεν αυτους Χριστιανους, +την δε δευτεραν κατηχουμενους, +ειτα την τριτην εξορκιζομεν αυτους κ.τ.λ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote292" name="footnote292"></a><b>Footnote 292:</b><a href="#footnotetag292"> (return) </a><p> +Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. +Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, +Lehre vom Abendmahl, +1851. Ruckert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856. Leimbach, +Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian's, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre +der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1864-1868; +cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been +separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united +in Alexandria in Clement's time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote293" name="footnote293"></a><b>Footnote 293:</b><a href="#footnotetag293"> (return) </a><p> +The collocation of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, as the early Christian +monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert. adv. Marc. IV. 34: "sacramentum +baptismi et eucharistiæ;" Hippol., can. arab. 38: "baptizatus et corpore +Christi pastus"), was, so far as I know, justified by no Church Father on internal +grounds. Considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. +They were classed together because they were instituted by the Lord, and because +the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical +interpretation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote294" name="footnote294"></a><b>Footnote 294:</b><a href="#footnotetag294"> (return) </a><p> +The story related by Dionysius (in Euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as +the narrator was an extreme spiritualist. How did it stand therefore with the dry +tree? Besides, Tertull. (de corona 3) says: "Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in +terram anxie patimur". Superstitious reverence for the sacrament <i>ante et extra +usum</i> is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote295" name="footnote295"></a><b>Footnote 295:</b><a href="#footnotetag295"> (return) </a><p> +Leimbach's investigations of Tertullian's use of words have placed this beyond +doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resuri. 8.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote296" name="footnote296"></a><b>Footnote 296:</b><a href="#footnotetag296"> (return) </a><p> +The chief passages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120; +Pæd. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq.: I. 5. 15: I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10. +66: I. 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V. II. 70. Clement thinks as little of forgiveness +of sins in connection with the Supper as does the author of the Didache +or the other Fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge +and immortality. Ignatius had already said, "the body is faith, the blood +is hope." This is also Clement's opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, +not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching was +therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. § 82, already given on Vol. i. p. +263) +Strom. V. 11. 70: λογικον 'ημιν βρωμα 'η γνωσις; I. 20. 46: +'ινα δη φαγωμεν λογικως; +V. 10. 66: βρωσις γαρ και ποσις του θειου λογου 'η γνωσις εστι +της θειας ουσιας. +Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: "sanguis quod est cognitio"; see Bigg, l.c., p. 106 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote297" name="footnote297"></a><b>Footnote 297:</b><a href="#footnotetag297"> (return) </a><p> Orig. in Matth. Comment. ser. 85: "Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus +suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens +et panis de pane cœ'esti... Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat +in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio +fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, +sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus;" see in Matt. XI. 14; +c. Cels. VIII. 33. Hom. XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen's doctrine of the Lord's +Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote298" name="footnote298"></a><b>Footnote 298:</b><a href="#footnotetag298"> (return) </a><p> +The conception of the Supper as <i>viaticum mortis</i> (fixed by the 13th canon of +Nicæa: περι δε των εξοδευοντων 'ο παλαιος και κανονικος νομος φυλαχθησεται και +νυν, 'ωστε ειτις εξοδευοι, του τελευταιου και αναγκαιοτατου εφοδιου μη αποστερεισθαι), +a conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by the idea +that the Supper was φαρμακον αθανασιας, the practice of benediction, and much +else in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of +antiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian +Antiquities.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote299" name="footnote299"></a><b>Footnote 299:</b><a href="#footnotetag299"> (return) </a><p> +The fullest account of the "history of the Romish Church down to the pontificate of +Leo I." has been given by Langen, 1881; but I can in no respect agree (see Theol. +Lit. Ztg. 1891, No. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him +in his treatise on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The +collection of passages given by Caspari, "Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols," +Vol. III., deserves special recognition. See also the sections bearing on this subject +in Renan's "Origines du Christianisme," Vols. V.-VII. especially VII., chaps. 5, 12, 23. +Sohm in his "Kirchenrecht" I. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has +adopted my +conception of "Catholic" and "Roman," and made it the basis of further investigations. +He estimates the importance of the Roman Church still more highly, in so +far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of Church law as well +as of the Catholic form of Church constitution; and on page 381 he flatly says: +"The whole Church constitution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement +was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other communities." +I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, +XII. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the Roman Church in the 2nd +century. Much that was the common property of Christendom, or is found in +every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically Roman.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote300" name="footnote300"></a><b>Footnote 300:</b><a href="#footnotetag300"> (return) </a><p> +No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom. The first, the ecclesiastical +West, includes the west coast of Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome together +with their daughter Churches, that is, above all, Gaul and North Africa. The second +or eastern portion embraces Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and the east part of Asia Minor. +A displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. In the West the +most important centres are Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, and Rome, cities with a Greek +and Oriental population. Even in Carthage the original speech of the Christian +community was probably Greek.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote301" name="footnote301"></a><b>Footnote 301:</b><a href="#footnotetag301"> (return) </a><p> Rome was the first city in the Empire, Alexandria the second. They were +the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in Kaibel, No. 1561, p. 407: +θρεψε μ' Αλεξανδρεια, μετοικον εθαψε δε 'Ρομη, 'αι κοσμου και +γης, ω ξενε, μητροπολεις). +This is reflected in the history of the Church; first Rome appears, then +Alexandria. The significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of +the Church will be treated of in a future volume. Abercius of Hieropolis, according +to the common interpretation (inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as "queen." +This was a customary appellation; see Eunap., vita Prohaer. p. 90: +'η βασιλευουσα 'Ρωμη.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote302" name="footnote302"></a><b>Footnote 302:</b><a href="#footnotetag302"> (return) </a><p> +In this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. +Up to the end of the second century the Alexandrian Church had none of the +Catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding institutions as +found in the Roman Church; but her writer, Clement, was also "as little acquainted +with the West as Homer." In the course of the first half of the 3rd century she +received those standards and institutions; but her writer, Origen, also travelled to +Rome himself in order to see "the very old" church and formed a connection +with Hippolytus; and her bishop Dionysius carried on a correspondence with his +Roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. Similar particulars +may also be ascertained with regard to the Syrian Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote303" name="footnote303"></a><b>Footnote 303:</b><a href="#footnotetag303"> (return) </a><p> See the proofs in the two preceding chapters. Note also that these elements +have an inward connection. So long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever +one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote304" name="footnote304"></a><b>Footnote 304:</b><a href="#footnotetag304"> (return) </a><p> +Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are αποδιυλισμενοι απο παντος +αλλοτριον χρωματος (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar +remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy +that +no heresy ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the +standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the +beginning of the 3rd century, we hear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who +was at any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then +a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The +lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which +he presided were attended by a μυριον πληθος ου μονον 'αιρετικων, +αλλα και 'ημετεφων. +That is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state of things in +Alexandria that would have been impossible in Rome at the same period. See, +besides, Dionys. Alex, in Euseb., H. E. VII. 7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote305" name="footnote305"></a><b>Footnote 305:</b><a href="#footnotetag305"> (return) </a><p> +I must here refrain from proving the last assertion. The possibility of Asia Minor +having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the +canon must be left an open question (cf. what Melito says, and the use made of +New Testament writings in the Epistle of Polycarp). We will, however, be constrained +to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that +Irenæus had the closest connection with the Church of that city, as is proved by +his great work, and that he lived there before he came to Gaul. Moreover, it is a +fact deserving of the greatest attention that the Montanists and their decided opponents +in Asia, the so-called Alogi, had no ecclesiastical <i>canon</i> before them, though +they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the Romish +canon, and none other, in the shape of <i>books read in the churches</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote306" name="footnote306"></a><b>Footnote 306:</b><a href="#footnotetag306"> (return) </a><p> +See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), +and cf. Harris, <i>Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western text of the New +Testament</i> 1891. An exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already +led to important cases of agreement between Rome and the East, and promises +still further revelations. See Duchesne, "Les Sources du Martyrologe Hieron." 1885. +Egli, "Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen ältester Zeit." 1887; the +same writer in the "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1891, p. 273 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote307" name="footnote307"></a><b>Footnote 307:</b><a href="#footnotetag307"> (return) </a><p>On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote308" name="footnote308"></a><b>Footnote 308:</b><a href="#footnotetag308"> (return) </a><p> See my treatise "Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfánge einer +bischòflichen Chronographie in Rom." in the report of the proceedings of the Royal +Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, pp. 617-658. I think I have there proved +that, in the time of Soter, Rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in +which important events were also entered.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote309" name="footnote309"></a><b>Footnote 309:</b><a href="#footnotetag309"> (return) </a><p> +That the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to +account or appeared in Rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in +that city, but rather in the East, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. +(Cf. the Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius' Epistles to the Romans with his +other Epistles). There must therefore have been a very rapid development of the +constitution in the time between Hyginus and Victor. Sohm, l.c., tries to show +that the monarchical episcopate arose in Rome immediately after the composition +of the First Epistle of Clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the +centre from which it spread throughout Christendom.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote310" name="footnote310"></a><b>Footnote 310:</b><a href="#footnotetag310"> (return) </a><p> See Pseudo-Cyprian's work "de aleat" which, in spite of remarks to the +contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor; cf. "Texte und Untersuchungen" +V. I; see c. I of this writing: "et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas +apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit +et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore +nostro portamus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote311" name="footnote311"></a><b>Footnote 311:</b><a href="#footnotetag311"> (return) </a><p> +See report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, +p. 622 ff. To the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given +by Nestle (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates +are reckoned after Sixtus I.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote312" name="footnote312"></a><b>Footnote 312:</b><a href="#footnotetag312"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions with the articles referring to +the regulation of the Church, which in Greek MSS. bear the name of Hippolytus. +Compare also the Arabian Canones Hippolyti, edited by Haneberg (1870) and +commented on by Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen VI. 4). Apart from the additions +and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name +of the Roman bishop is wrongly assigned to them. We must further remember the +importance assigned by the tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to one of +the earliest Roman "bishops," Clement, as the confidant and secretary of the +Apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote313" name="footnote313"></a><b>Footnote 313:</b><a href="#footnotetag313"> (return) </a><p> See my proofs in "Texte und Untersuchungen," Vol. II., Part 5. The canons +of the Council of Nicæa presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for +the whole Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote314" name="footnote314"></a><b>Footnote 314:</b><a href="#footnotetag314"> (return) </a><p> +We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, +<i>e.g.</i>, in the collection of Cyprian's epistles. The Roman bishop Cornelius informs +Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other +Churches (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 3: +ηλθον εις 'ημας επιστολαι Κορνηλιου 'Ρωμαιων +επισκοπου προς ... φαβιον, δηλουσαι τα περι της 'Ρωμαιων συνοδου, και τα δοξαντα +πασι τοις κατα την Ιταλιαν και Αφρικην και τας αυτοφι χωρας). We must not +forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called +œcumenical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, <i>e.g.</i>, +Dionysius of Corinth +and Dionysius of Alexandria. In matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a +great many Churches, even as far as Armenia, and sent many letters to Rome +(Euseb., H. E. VI. 46). The Catholic theologian, Dittrich—before the Vatican +Decree, no doubt—has spoken of him in the following terms (Dionysius von Alexandrien, +1867, p. 26): "As Dionysius participated in the power, so also he shared in +the task of the primateship." "Along with the Roman bishop he was, above all, +called upon to guard the interests of the whole Church."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote315" name="footnote315"></a><b>Footnote 315:</b><a href="#footnotetag315"> (return) </a><p> +This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is +now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3rd. ed., 1888, pp. 12, 21): "The +Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The +Alexandrian Church and theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the +3rd century. The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great +Church" ... "The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to +her of Rome's central position in the religion of the heathen world during the +Empire: <i>urbs æterna urbs sacra</i>."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote316" name="footnote316"></a><b>Footnote 316:</b><a href="#footnotetag316"> (return) </a><p> +This is also admitted by Langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this +precedence existed from the beginning.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote317" name="footnote317"></a><b>Footnote 317:</b><a href="#footnotetag317"> (return) </a><p>Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote318" name="footnote318"></a><b>Footnote 318:</b><a href="#footnotetag318"> (return) </a><p> At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent +ambassadors to Corinth, 'οιτινες μαρτυρες εσονται μεταξυ 'υμων και 'ημων. Note +carefully also the position of the Corinthian community with which the Roman +one interfered (see on this point Wrede, Untersuchungen zum I Clemensbrief, 1891.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote319" name="footnote319"></a><b>Footnote 319:</b><a href="#footnotetag319"> (return) </a><p> +In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb προκαθημαι is twice used about the Roman +Church (προκαθηται εν [to be understood in a local sense] τοπωι +κ'ωριον 'Ρωμαιων—προκαθημενη της αγαπης = presiding in, +or having the guardianship of, love). +Ignatius (Magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or +presbyters in relation to the community. See, besides, the important testimony in +Rom. II.: αλλους εδιδαξατε. Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius +presupposes +an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the Church in +the higher spheres of government. Fifty years later we have a memorable proof +of this in the Marcia-Victor episode. Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the +Church will interfeie quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on +behalf of one of her own number. In the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 2, the +Roman bishop is called 'ο αληθειας προκαθεζομενος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote320" name="footnote320"></a><b>Footnote 320:</b><a href="#footnotetag320"> (return) </a><p> +Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf., above all, the words: Εξ αρχης 'υμιν εθος +εστι τουτο, παντας μεν αδελφους ποικιως ευεργετειν, εκκλησιαις τε πολλαις ταις +κατα πασαν πολιν εφοδια πεμπειν ... πατροπαραδοτον εθος 'Ρωμαιων 'Ρωμαιοι +διαφυλαττοντες. Note here the emphasis laid on Ρωμαιοι.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote321" name="footnote321"></a><b>Footnote 321:</b><a href="#footnotetag321"> (return) </a><p> According to Irenæus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem +Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5: +αυται φωναι της εκκλησιας, εξ 'ης πασα εσχηκεν εκκλησια της αρχην αυται +φωναι της +μητροπολεως των της καινης διαθηκης πολιτων). For obvious reasons Irenæus did not +speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that passage cannot be utilised.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote322" name="footnote322"></a><b>Footnote 322:</b><a href="#footnotetag322"> (return) </a><p> Iren. III. 3. i: "Sed quomiam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium +ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, +a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ +ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuutiatam hominibus fidem, +per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus +omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel +per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim +ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, +hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, +conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio." On this we may remark as +follows: (1) The special importance which Irenæus claims for the Roman Church—for +he is only referring to her—is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation +by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes "maxima," +"antiquissima" etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this assumption (Euseb., II. +25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards +capability of proving the truth of the Church's faith, all the communities founded +by the Apostles possess <i>principalitas</i> in relation to the others; but the Roman +Church has the <i>potentior principalitas</i>, in so far as she excels all the rest in her +qualities of <i>ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita</i> etc. Principalitas = "sovereign +authority," αυθεντια, for this was probably the word in the original text (see +proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In common +with most scholars I used to think that the "in qua" refers to "Roman +Church;" but I have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it +relates to "omnem ecclesiam," and that the clause introduced by "in qua" merely +asserts that every church, <i>in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., +orthodox</i>, +must as a matter of course agree with that of Rome. (2) Irenæus asserts that every +Church, <i>i.e.</i>, believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this Church +("convenire" is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation +"every Church must come to that of Rome" is not admissible). However, this +"must" is not meant as an imperative, but == αναγκη == "it cannot be otherwise." +In reference to <i>principalitas</i> == αυθεντια (see I. 31. 1: I. 26. 1) +it must be remembered +that Victor of Rome (l.c.) speaks of the "origo <i>authentici</i> apostolatus," and +Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, "ab ecclesia +<i>authenticæ</i> regulæ abrupit" (adv. Valent. 4).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote323" name="footnote323"></a><b>Footnote 323:</b><a href="#footnotetag323"> (return) </a><p> +Beyond doubt his "convenire necesse est" is founded on actual circumstances.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote324" name="footnote324"></a><b>Footnote 324:</b><a href="#footnotetag324"> (return) </a><p> On other important journeys of Christian men and bishops to Rome in the +2nd and 3rd centuries see Caspari, l.c. Above all we may call attention to the +journey of Abercius of Hierapolis (not Hierapolis on the Meander) about 200 or +even earlier. Its historical reality is not to be questioned. See his words in the +epitaph composed by himself (V. 7 f.): +εις 'Ρωμην 'ος επεμψεν εμεν βασιληαν αθρησαι +και βασιλισσαν ιδειν χρυσοστολον χρυσοπεδιλον. However, Ficker raises very serious +objections to the Christian origin of the inscription.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote325" name="footnote325"></a><b>Footnote 325:</b><a href="#footnotetag325"> (return) </a><p> +We cannot here discuss how this tradition arose; in all likelihood it already +expresses the position which the Roman Church very speedily attained in Christendom. +See Renan, Orig., Vol. VII., p. 70: "Pierre el Paul (léconciliés), voilà le chef-d'oeuvre +qui fondait la suprématie ecclésiastique de Rome dans làvenir. Une nouvelle +qualité mythique lemplagait celle de Romulus et Remus." But it is highly probable +that Peter was really in Rome like Paul (see 1 Clem. V., Ignatius ad Rom. IV.); +both really performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs +in that city.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote326" name="footnote326"></a><b>Footnote 326:</b><a href="#footnotetag326"> (return) </a><p> +The wealth of the Roman Church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000 +sesterces brought her by Marcion (Tertull., de præse. 30). The "Shepherd" also +contains instructive particulars with regard to this. As far as her influence is +concerned, we possess various testimonies from Philipp. IV. 22 down to the famous +account by Hippolytus of the relations of Victor to Marcia. We may call special +attention to Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote327" name="footnote327"></a><b>Footnote 327:</b><a href="#footnotetag327"> (return) </a><p> See Tertullian, adv. Prax. I; Euseb., H. E. V. 3, 4. +Dictionary of Christian +Biography III., p. 937.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote328" name="footnote328"></a><b>Footnote 328:</b><a href="#footnotetag328"> (return) </a><p> +Euseb, H.E. V. 24. 9: επι τουτοις 'ο μεν της 'Ρωμαιων προεστως Βικτωρ +αθροως +της Ασιας πασης 'αμα ταις 'ομοροις εκκλησιαις τας παροικιας αποτεμνειν 'ωσαν +'ετεροδοξουσας, +της κοινης 'ενωσεως πειραται, και στηλιτευει γε δια γραμματων, ακοινωνητους +παντας αρδην τους εκεισε ανακηρυττων αδελφους. Stress should be laid on +two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia Minor were to be +excluded from the κοινη 'ενωσις, and not merely from the fellowship of the Roman +Church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those +Churches. See Heinichen, Melet. VIII, on Euseb., l.c. Victor's action is parallelled +by that of Stephen. Firmilian says to the latter: "Dum enim putas, omnes abs +te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti." It is a very instructive fact +that in the 4th century Rome also made the attempt to have Sabbath fasting +established as an <i>apostolic</i> custom. See the interesting work confuted by Augustine +(ep. 36), a writing which emanates from a Roman author who is unfortunately unknown +to us. Cf. also Augustine's 54th and 55th epistles.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote329" name="footnote329"></a><b>Footnote 329:</b><a href="#footnotetag329"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus also (l.c. § 11) does not appear to have questioned Victor's proceeding +as such, but as applied to this particular case.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote330" name="footnote330"></a><b>Footnote 330:</b><a href="#footnotetag330"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertull., de orat. 22: "Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris +commovendam." De virg. vel. I: "Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus +post Christum;" 2: "Eas ego ecclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostolici +viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam;" 3: "Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere +voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores." This is also the question referred to in +the important remark in Jerome, de vir. inl. 53: "Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem +presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ +ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote331" name="footnote331"></a><b>Footnote 331:</b><a href="#footnotetag331"> (return) </a><p> +Stephen acted like Victor and excluded almost all the East from the fellowship +of the Church; see in addition to Cyprian's epistles that of Dionysius of +Alexandria in Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. In reference to Hippolytus, see Philosoph. l. IX. +In regard to Origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in Matth. XI. 9, 15: XII. +9-14: XVI. 8, 22: XVII. 14; in Joh. X. 16; Rom. VI in Isai. c. 1. With regard +to Philosoph. IX. 12, Sohm rightly remarks (p. 389): "It is clear that the responsibility +was laid on the Roman bishop not merely in several cases where married men +were made presbyters and deacons, but also when they were appointed bishops; +and it is also evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not +deposed in consequence of their marrying." One cannot help concluding that the +Roman bishop has the power of appointing and deposing not merely presbyters +and deacons, but also bishops. Moreover, the impression is conveyed that this +appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in Rome, for the passage contains +a description of existent conditions in the Roman Church. Other communities may +be deprived of their bishops by an order from Rome, and a bishop (chosen in +Rome) may be sent them. The words of the passage are: επι καλλιστου ηρξαντο +επισκοποι και πρεσβυτεροι και διακονοι διγαμοι και τριγαμοι καθιστασθαι εις κληρους +ει δε και τις εν κληρω ων γαμοιη, μενειν τον τοιουτον εν τω κληρω 'ως μη 'ημαρτηκοτα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote332" name="footnote332"></a><b>Footnote 332:</b><a href="#footnotetag332"> (return) </a><p> +In the treatise "Die Briefe des romischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz +im Jahre 250" (Abhandlungen fur Weizsäcker, 1892), I have shown how the Roman +clergy kept the revenue of the Church and of the Churches in their hands, though +they had no bishop. What language the Romans used in epistles 8, 30, 36 of the +Cyprian collection, and how they interfered in the affairs of the Carthaginian Church! +Beyond doubt the Roman <i>Church</i> possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year +250; it was the primacy of active participation and fulfilled duty. As yet there was +no recognised dogmatic or historic foundation assigned for it; in fact it is highly +probable that this theory was still shaky and uncertain in Rome herself. The +college of presbyters and deacons feels and speaks as if it were the bishop. For +it was not on the bishop that the incomparable prestige of Rome was based—at +least this claim was not yet made with any confidence,—but on the <i>city itself</i>, on +the origin and history, the faith and love, the earnestness and zeal <i>of the whole +Roman Church and her clergy</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote333" name="footnote333"></a><b>Footnote 333:</b><a href="#footnotetag333"> (return) </a><p> In Tertullian, de præsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like +Irenæus, cites the Roman Church as one amongst others. We have already remarked +that in the scheme of proof from prescription no higher rank could be assigned to the +Roman Church than to any other of the group founded by the Apostles. Tertullian +continues to maintain this position, but expressly remarks that the Roman Church +has special authority for the Carthaginian, because Carthage had received its +Christianity from Rome. He expresses the special relationship between Rome and +Carthage in the following terms: "Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde +nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est." With Tertullian, then, the <i>de facto</i> position +of the Roman Church in Christendom did not lead to the same conclusion in the +scheme of proof from prescription as we found in Irenæus. But in his case also +that position is indicated by the rhetorical ardour with which he speaks of the +Roman Church, whereas he does nothing more than mention Corinth, Philippi, +Thessalonica, and Ephesus. Even at that time, moreover, he had ground enough +for a more reserved attitude towards Rome, though in the antignostic struggle he +could not dispense with the tradition of the Roman community. In the veil dispute +(de virg. vel. 2) he opposed the authority of the Greek apostolic Churches to that +of Rome. Polycarp had done the same against Anicetus, Polycrates against Victor, +Proculus against his Roman opponents. Conversely, Praxeas in his appeal to Eleutherus +(c. 1.: "præcessorum auctoritates"), Caius when contending with Proculus, +the Carthaginian clergy when opposing Tertullian (in the veil dispute), and Victor +when contending with Polycrates set the authority of Rome against that of the +Greek apostolic Churches. These struggles at the transition from the and to the +3rd century are of the utmost importance. Rome was here seeking to overthrow +the authority of the only group of Churches able to enter into rivalry with her +those of Asia Minor, and succeeded in the attempt.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote334" name="footnote334"></a><b>Footnote 334:</b><a href="#footnotetag334"> (return) </a><p> De pudic. 21: "De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. +Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi +dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt +alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et +alligandi +potestatem?" Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With this +should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his epistles to James +of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following words are put in Peter's +mouth: +κλημεντα τουτον επισκοπον 'υμιν χειροντονω, 'ω την εμην των λογων πιστευω +καθεδραν ... δια αυτω μεταδιδωμι την εξουσιαν του δεσμευειν και λυειν, 'ινα περι +παντος ου αν χειροτονηση επι γης εσται δεδογματισμενον εν ουρανοις. δησει γαρ 'ο +δει δεθηναι και λυσει 'ο δει λυθηναι, 'ως τον της εκκλησιας ειδως κανονα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote335" name="footnote335"></a><b>Footnote 335:</b><a href="#footnotetag335"> (return) </a><p> See Dionysius of Alexandria's letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., +H. E. VII. 5. 2): +'Αι μεντοι Συριαι 'ολαι και 'η Αραβια, οις επαρκειτε 'εκαστοτε και +οις νυν επεστειλατε.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote336" name="footnote336"></a><b>Footnote 336:</b><a href="#footnotetag336"> (return) </a><p> In the case of Origen's condemnation the decision of Rome seems to have +been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a letter +written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36; +Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian had previously condemned him +after summoning a "senate;" see Jerome, ep. 33 (Döllinger, Hippolytus and Calixtus, +p. 259 f.). Further, it is an important fact that a deputation of Alexandrian Christians, +who did not agree with the Christology of their bishop Dionysius, repaired to Rome +to the <i>Roman</i> bishop Dionysius and formally accused the first named prelate. It +is also significant that Dionysius received this complaint and brought the matter up +at a Roman synod. No objection was taken to this proceeding (Athanas., de synod.). +This information is very instructive, for it proves that the Roman Church was ever +regarded as specially charged with watching over the observance of the conditions +of the general ecclesiastical federation, the κοινη 'ενωσις. +As to the fact that in +circular letters, not excepting Eastern ones, the Roman Church was put at the head +of the address, see Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. How frequently foreign bishops came +to Rome is shown by the 19th canon of Arles (A.D. 314): "De episcopis peregrinis, +qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant." The first +canon is also important in deciding the special position of Rome.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote337" name="footnote337"></a><b>Footnote 337:</b><a href="#footnotetag337"> (return) </a><p> +Peculiar circumstances, which unfortunately we cannot quite explain, are connected +with the cases discussed by Cyprian in epp. 67 and 68. The Roman bishop must +have had the acknowledged power of dealing with the bishop of Arles, whereas +the Gallic prelates had not this right. Sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the Roman +bishop alone—not Cyprian or the bishops of Gaul—had authority to exclude the +bishop of Arles from the general fellowship of the Church, but that, as far as the +Gallic Churches were concerned, such an excommunication possessed no legal effect, +but only a moral one, because in their case the bishop of Rome had only a +spiritual authority and no legal power. Further, two Spanish bishops publicly appealed +to the Roman see against their deposition, and Cyprian regarded this appeal +as in itself correct. Finally, Cornelius says of himself in a letter (in Euseb., H. E. +VI. 43. 10): των λοιπων επισκοπων διαδοχους εις τους τοπους, +εν 'οις ησαν, χειροτονησαντες +απεσταλκαμεν. This quotation refers to Italy, and the passage, which +must be read connectedly, makes it plain (see, besides, the quotation in reference to +Calixtus given above on p. 162), that, before the middle of the 3rd century, the +Roman Church already possessed a legal right of excommunication and the recognised +power of making ecclesiastical appointments as far as the communities and bishops +in Italy were concerned (see Sohm, p. 389 ff.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote338" name="footnote338"></a><b>Footnote 338:</b><a href="#footnotetag338"> (return) </a><p> Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 19. The Church of Antioch sought to enter upon an +independent line of development under Paul of Samosata. Paul's fall was the victory +of Rome. We may suppose it to be highly probable, though to the best of my +belief there is for the present no sure proof, that it was not till then that the Roman +standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures (see, on the +contrary, the use of Scripture in the Didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic +episcopacy attained supremacy in Antioch; but that they began to be introduced +into that city about the time of Serapion's bishopric (that is, during the Easter +controversy). The old records of the Church of Edessa have an important bearing +on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to +assume a Catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result +of connection with Rome. See <i>the Doctrine of Addai</i> by Phillips, p. 50: "Palut +himself went to Antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from Serapion, +bishop of Antioch. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, himself also received the hand +from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of +the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from our Lord, who was there +bishop of Rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the Cæsar, who reigned there 13 years." +(See also Tixeront, <i>Edesse</i>, pp. 149, 152.) Cf. with this the prominence given in +the Acts +of Scharbil and Barsamya to the fact that they were contemporaries of Fabian, bishop of +Rome. We read there (see Rubens Duval, Les Actes de Scharbil et les Actes de +Barsamya, Paris, 1889, and Histoire d'Eclesse, p. 130): "Barsamya (he was bishop of +Edessa at the time of Decius) lived at the time of Fabian, bishop of Rome. He had +received the laying on of hands from Abschelama, who had received it from Palut. +Palut had been consecrated by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, and the latter had been +consecrated by Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome." As regards the relation of the State +of Rome to the Roman Church, that is, to the Roman bishop, who by the year +250 had already become a sort of <i>præfectus urbis</i>, +with his district superintendents, +the deacons, and in fact a sort of <i>princeps æmulus</i>, cf. (1) the recorded comments +of Alexander Severus on the Christians, and especially those on their organisation; +(2) the edict of Maximinus Thrax and the banishment of the bishops Pontian and +Hippolytus; (3) the attitude of Philip the Arabian; (4) the remarks of Decius in +Cyp. ep. 55 (see above p. 124) and his proceedings against the Roman bishops, and +(5) the attitude of Aurelian in Antioch. On the extent and organisation of the +Roman Church about 250 see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote339" name="footnote339"></a><b>Footnote 339:</b><a href="#footnotetag339"> (return) </a><p> The memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by Eusebius of Dorylæum +to Leo I. (Neues Archiv., Vol. XI., part 2, p. 364 f.) are no mere flattery, +and the fifth century is not the first to which they are applicable: "Curavit desuper +et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui +in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum +possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam +servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam +indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis +caritatem, etc." See also Theodoret's letters addressed to Rome.</p></blockquote> + +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page169" id="page169"></a>[pg 169]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="PART_II" id="PART_II"></a>II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF +CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF +DOCTRINE</h2> + +<h2><a name="CHAP_IV" id="CHAP_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY. +THE APOLOGISTS.</h3> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_IV_I" id="SEC_IV_I"></a>1. <i>Introduction.</i><a id="footnotetag340" name="footnotetag340"></a><a href="#footnote340"><sup>340</sup></a></h3> + +<p>The object of the Christian Apologists, some of whom filled +ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual +progress,<a id="footnotetag341" name="footnotetag341"></a><a href="#footnote341"><sup>341</sup></a> was, as they themselves explained, to uphold the +Christianity professed by the Christian Churches and publicly +preached. They were convinced that the Christian faith was +founded on revelation and that only a mind enlightened by God +could grasp and maintain the faith. They acknowledged the +Old Testament to be the authoritative source of God's revelation, +maintained that the whole human race was meant to be +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page170" id="page170"></a>[pg 170]</span> +reached by Christianity, and adhered to the early Christian +eschatology. These views as well as the strong emphasis they +laid upon human freedom and responsibility, enabled them to +attain a firm standpoint in opposition to "Gnosticism," and to +preserve their position within the Christian communities, whose +moral purity and strength they regarded as a strong proof of +the truth of this faith. In the endeavours of the Apologists to +explain Christianity to the cultured world, we have before us +the attempts of Greek churchmen to represent the Christian +religion as a philosophy, and to convince outsiders that it was +the highest wisdom and the absolute truth. These efforts were +not rejected by the Churches like those of the so-called Gnostics, +but rather became in subsequent times the foundation of +the ecclesiastical dogmatic. The Gnostic speculations were +repudiated, whereas those of the Apologists were accepted. The +manner in which the latter set forth Christianity as a philosophy +met with approval. What were the conditions under which +ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek philosophy concluded the +alliance which has found a place in the history of the world? +How did this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst +"Gnosticism" was at first rejected? These are the two great +questions the correct answers to which are of fundamental importance +for the understanding of the history of Christian dogma.</p> + +<p>The answers to these questions appear paradoxical. The +theses of the Apologists finally overcame all scruples in ecclesiastical +circles and were accepted by the Græco-Roman world, +because they made Christianity <i>rational</i> without taking from, +or adding to, its traditional historic material. The secret of the +epoch-making success of the apologetic theology is thus explained: +These Christian philosophers formulated the content of the +Gospel in a manner which appealed to the common sense of +all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the age. Moreover, +they contrived to use the positive material of tradition, +including the life and worship of Christ, in such a way as to +furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof +that had hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain. In +the theology of the Apologists, Christianity, as the religious +enlightenment directly emanating from God himself, is most +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page171" id="page171"></a>[pg 171]</span> +sharply contrasted with all polytheism, natural religion, and +ceremonial. They proclaimed it in the most emphatic manner +as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute morality. +Almost the whole positive material of Christianity is embodied +in the story which relates its entrance into the world, +its spread, and the proof of its truth. The religion itself, on +the other hand, appears as the truth that is surely attested and +accords with reason—a truth the content of which is not primarily +dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all +polytheism.</p> + +<p>Now this was the very thing required. In the second century +of our era a great many needs and aspirations were undoubtedly +making themselves felt in the sphere of religion and +morals. "Gnosticism" and Marcionite Christianity prove the +variety and depth of the needs then asserting themselves within +the space that the ecclesiastical historian is able to survey. +Mightier than all others, however, was the longing men felt to +free themselves from the burden of the past, to cast away the +rubbish of cults and of unmeaning religious ceremonies, and to +be assured that the results of religious philosophy, those great +and simple doctrines of virtue and immortality and of the God +who is a Spirit, were certain truths. He who brought the message +that these ideas were realities, and who, on the strength +of these realities, declared polytheism and the worship of idols +to be obsolete, had the mightiest forces on his side; for the +times were now ripe for this preaching. What formed the +strength of the apologetic philosophy was the proclamation that +Christianity both contained the highest truth, as men already +supposed it to be and as they had discovered it in their own +minds, and the absolutely reliable guarantee that was desired +for this truth. To the quality which makes it appear meagre +to us it owed its impressiveness. The fact of its falling in with +the general spiritual current of the time and making no attempt +to satisfy special and deeper needs enabled it to plead the +cause of spiritual monotheism and to oppose the worship of +idols in the manner most easily understood. As it did not +require historic and positive material to describe the nature of +religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the Apologists +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page172" id="page172"></a>[pg 172]</span> +to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and +worship of the different nations.<a id="footnotetag342" name="footnotetag342"></a><a href="#footnote342"><sup>342</sup></a> The same cause, however, +made them take up the conservative position with regard to +the historical traditions of Christianity. These were not ultimately +tested as to their content, for this was taken for granted, +no matter how they might be worded; but they were used to +give an assurance of the truth, and to prove that the religion +of the spirit was not founded on human opinion, but on divine +revelation. The only really important consideration in Christianity +is that it is <i>revelation, real revelation</i>. The Apologists +had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investigation +was unnecessary. The result of Greek philosophy, the +philosophy of Plato and Zeno, as it had further developed in +the empires of Alexander the Great and the Romans, was to +attain victory and permanence by the aid of Christianity. Thus +we view the progress of this development to-day,<a id="footnotetag343" name="footnotetag343"></a><a href="#footnote343"><sup>343</sup></a> and Christianity +really proved to be the force from which that religious +philosophy, viewed as a theory of the world and system of +morality, first received the courage to free itself from the polytheistic +past and descend from the circles of the learned to the +common people.</p> + +<p>This constitutes the deepest distinction between Christian +philosophers like Justin and those of the type of Valentinus. +The latter sought for a <i>religion</i>; the former, though indeed they +were not very clear about their own purpose, sought <i>assurance</i> +as to a theistic and moral conception of the world which they +already possessed. At first the complexus of Christian tradition, +which must have possessed many features of attraction for them, +was something foreign to both. The latter, however, sought to +make this tradition intelligible. For the former it was enough +that they had here a revelation before them; that this revelation +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page173" id="page173"></a>[pg 173]</span> +also bore unmistakable testimony to the one God, who was a +Spirit, to virtue, and to immortality; and that it was capable +of convincing men and of leading them to a virtuous life. +Viewed superficially, the Apologists were no doubt the conservatives; +but they were so, because they scarcely in any respect +meddled with the contents of tradition. The "Gnostics," on +the contrary, sought to understand what they read and to investigate +the truth of the message of which they heard. The +most characteristic feature is the attitude of each to the Old +Testament. The Apologists were content to have found in +it an ancient source of revelation, and viewed the book as a +testimony to the truth, <i>i.e.</i>, to philosophy and virtue; the Gnostics +investigated this document and examined to what extent it +agreed with the new impressions they had received from the +Gospel. We may sum up as follows: The Gnostics sought to +determine what Christianity is as a religion, and, as they were +convinced of the absoluteness of Christianity, this process led +them to incorporate with it all that they looked on as sublime +and holy and to remove everything they recognised to be inferior. +The Apologists, again, strove to discover an authority +for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirmation +of a theory of the universe, which, if true, contained for +them the certainty of eternal life; and this they found in the +Christian tradition.</p> + +<p>At bottom this contrast is a picture of the great discord +existing in the religious philosophy of the age itself (see p. 129, +vol. I.). No one denied the fact that all truth was divine, that +is, was founded on revelation. The great question, however, +was whether every man possessed this truth as a slumbering +capacity that only required to be awakened; whether it was +rational, <i>i.e.</i>, merely moral truth, or must be above that which +is moral, that is, of a religious nature; whether it must carry +man beyond himself; and whether a real redemption was necessary. +It is ultimately the dispute between morality and religion, +which appears as an unsettled problem in the theses of the +idealistic philosophers and in the whole spiritual conceptions +then current among the educated, and which recurs in the contrast +between the Apologetic and the Gnostic theology. And, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page174" id="page174"></a>[pg 174]</span> +as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades +and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent +theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter;<a id="footnotetag344" name="footnotetag344"></a><a href="#footnote344"><sup>344</sup></a> +for no Apologist quite left out of sight the idea of redemption +(deliverance from the dominion of demons can only be effected by +the Logos, <i>i.e.</i>, God). Wherever the idea of freedom is strongly +emphasised, the religious element, in the strict sense of the +word, appears in jeopardy. This is the case with the Apologists +throughout. Conversely, wherever redemption forms the central +thought, need is felt of a suprarational truth, which no longer +views morality as the only aim, and which, again, requires +particular media, a sacred history and sacred symbols. Stoic +rationalism, in its logical development, is menaced wherever we +meet the perception that the course of the world must in some +way be helped, and wherever the contrast between reason and +sensuousness, that the old Stoa had confused, is clearly felt to +be an unendurable state of antagonism that man cannot remove +by his own unaided efforts. The need of a revelation +had its starting-point in philosophy here. The judgment of +oneself and of the world to which Platonism led, the self-consciousness +which it awakened by the detachment of man +from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necessity +to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving +for a revelation. The Apologists felt this. But their rationalism +gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. It +was not their Christian ideas which first involved them in contradictions. +At the time when Christianity appeared on the +scene, the Platonic and Stoic systems themselves were already +so complicated that philosophers did not find their difficulties +seriously increased by a consideration of the Christian doctrines. +As <i>Apologists</i>, however, they decidedly took the part of +Christianity because, according to them, it was the doctrine of +reason and freedom.</p> + +<p>The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far +as the Gnostics in various ways transformed it into a Hellenic +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page175" id="page175"></a>[pg 175]</span> +religion for the educated. The Apologists used it—we may +almost say inadvertently—to overthrow polytheism by maintaining +that Christianity was the realisation of an absolutely moral theism. +The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold +destiny on Græco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the +Jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both +the speculations of the Gnostics and the theories of the Apologists +were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish +Alexandrians, and particularly in that of Philo. Here also the +Gospel merely entered upon the heritage of Judaism.<a id="footnotetag345" name="footnotetag345"></a><a href="#footnote345"><sup>345</sup></a> Three centuries +before the appearance of Christian Apologists, Jews, who +had received a Hellenic training, had already set forth the religion +of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualised +form which represents it as the absolute and highest +philosophy, <i>i.e.</i>, the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of recompense +in the next world. Here these Jewish philosophers had +already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the +national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the +truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this +method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew.<a id="footnotetag346" name="footnotetag346"></a><a href="#footnote346"><sup>346</sup></a> +We see from the Jewish Sibylline oracles how wide-spread it +was. Philo, however, was not only a Stoic rationalist, but a +hyper-Platonic religious philosopher. In like manner, the Christian +Apologists did not altogether lack this element, though in some +isolated cases among them there are hardly any traces of it. +This feature is most fully represented among the Gnostics.</p> + +<p>This transformation of religion into a philosophic system would +not have been possible had not Greek philosophy itself happened +to be in process of development into a religion. Such a transformation +was certainly very foreign to the really classical time +of Greece and Rome. The pious belief in the efficacy and +power of the gods and in their appearances and manifestations, +as well as the traditional worship, could have no bond of union +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page176" id="page176"></a>[pg 176]</span> +with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of +things. The idea of a religious dogma which was at once +to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of +conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. But +philosophy, particularly in the Stoa, set out in search of this +idea, and, after further developments, sought for one special +religion with which it could agree or through which it could at +least attain certainty. The meagre cults of the Greeks and Romans +were unsuited for this. So men turned their eyes towards the +barbarians. Nothing more clearly characterises the position of +things in the second century than the agreement between two +men so radically different as Tatian and Celsus. Tatian emphatically +declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to +Celsus it is also a "truism" that the barbarians have more +capacity than the Greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.<a id="footnotetag347" name="footnotetag347"></a><a href="#footnote347"><sup>347</sup></a> +Everything was in fact prepared, and nothing was wanting.</p> + +<p>About the middle of the second century, however, the moral +and rationalistic element in the philosophy and spiritual culture of +the time was still more powerful than the religious and mystic; +for Neoplatonism, which under its outward coverings concealed +the aspiration after religion and the living God, was only in +its first beginnings. It was not otherwise in Christian circles. The +"Gnostics" were in the minority. What the great majority of the +Church felt to be intelligible and edifying above everything +else was an earnest moralism.<a id="footnotetag348" name="footnotetag348"></a><a href="#footnote348"><sup>348</sup></a> New and strange as the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page177" id="page177"></a>[pg 177]</span> +undertaking to represent Christianity as a philosophy might +seem at first, the Apologists, so far as they were understood, +appeared to advance nothing inconsistent with Christian common +sense. Besides, they did not question authorities, but rather +supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials. +For all these reasons, and also because their writings were not +at first addressed to the communities, but only to outsiders, +the marvellous attempt to present Christianity to the world as +the religion which is the true philosophy, and as the philosophy +which is the true religion, remained unopposed in the +Church. But in what sense was the Christian religion set forth +as a philosophy? An exact answer to this question is of the +highest interest as regards the history of Christian dogma.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_IV_II" id="SEC_IV_II"></a>2. <i>Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation</i>.</h3> + +<p>It was a new undertaking and one of permanent importance +to a tradition hitherto so little concerned for its own vindication, +when Quadratus and the Athenian philosopher, Aristides, presented +treatises in defence of Christianity to the emperor.<a id="footnotetag349" name="footnotetag349"></a><a href="#footnote349"><sup>349</sup></a> +About a century had elapsed since the Gospel of Christ had +begun to be preached. It may be said that the Apology of +Aristides was a most significant opening to the second century, +whilst we find Origen at its close. Marcianus Aristides expressly +designates himself in his pamphlet as a <i>philosopher of +the Athenians</i>. Since the days when the words were written: +"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain +deceit" (Col. II. 8), it had constantly been repeated (see, as +evidence, Celsus, passim) that Christian preaching and philosophy +were things entirely different, that God had chosen the fools, +and that man's duty was not to investigate and seek, but to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page178" id="page178"></a>[pg 178]</span> +believe and hope. Now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause +of Christianity. In the summary he gave of the content of +Christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as +a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. By +expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in +his argument, Aristides gave supreme prominence to the very +doctrine which simple Christians also prized as the most important.<a id="footnotetag350" name="footnotetag350"></a><a href="#footnote350"><sup>350</sup></a> +Moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural character +of the Christian doctrine revealed by the Son of the Most +High God, but also the continuous inspiration of believers—the +new <i>race</i> (not a new <i>school</i>)—he confessed in the most express +way the peculiar nature of this philosophy as a divine truth. +According to him Christianity is philosophy because its content +is in accordance with reason, and because it gives a satisfactory +and universally intelligible answer to the questions with which +all real philosophers have concerned themselves. But it is no +philosophy, in fact it is really the complete opposite of this, in +so far as it proceeds from revelation and is propagated by the +agency of God, <i>i.e.</i>, has a supernatural and divine origin, on +which alone the truth and certainty of its doctrines finally depend. +This contrast to philosophy is chiefly shown in the unphilosophical +form in which Christianity was first preached to the world. +That is the thesis maintained by all the Apologists from Justin +to Tertullian,<a id="footnotetag351" name="footnotetag351"></a><a href="#footnote351"><sup>351</sup></a> and which Jewish philosophers before them propounded +and defended. This proposition may certainly be +expressed in a great variety of ways. In the first place, it is +important whether the first or second half is emphasised, and +secondly, whether that which is "universally intelligible" is to +be reckoned as philosophy at all, or is to be separated from it +as that which comes by "nature." Finally, the attitude to be +taken up towards the Greek philosophers is left an open question, +so that the thesis, taking up this attitude as a starting-point, +may again assume various forms. But was the contradiction +which it contains not felt? The content of revelation is to be +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page179" id="page179"></a>[pg 179]</span> +rational; but does that which is rational require a revelation? +How the proposition was understood by the different Apologists +requires examination.</p> + +<p><i>Aristides.</i> He first gives an exposition of monotheism and +the monotheistic cosmology (God as creator and mover of the +universe, as the spiritual, perfect, almighty Being, whom all +things need, and who requires nothing). In the second chapter +he distinguishes, according to the Greek text, three, and, according +to the Syriac, four classes of men (in the Greek text polytheists, +Jews, Christians, the polytheists being divided into Chaldeans, +Greeks, and Egyptians; in the Syriac barbarians, Greeks, Jews, +Christians), and gives their origin. He derives the Christians +from Jesus Christ and reproduces the Christian <i>kerygma</i> (Son +of the Most High God, birth from the Virgin, 12 disciples, +death on the cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, missionary +labours of the 12 disciples). After this, beginning with the +third chapter, follows a criticism of polytheism, that is, the false +theology of the barbarians, Greeks, and Egyptians (down to +chapter 12). In the 13th chapter the Greek authors and philosophers +are criticised, and the Greek myths, as such, are shown +to be false. In the 14th chapter the Jews are introduced (they +are monotheists and their ethical system is praised; but they +are then reproached with worshipping of angels and a false +ceremonial). In the 15th chapter follows a description of the +Christians, <i>i.e.</i>, above all, of their pure, holy life. It is they +who have found the truth, because they know the creator of +heaven and earth. This description is continued in chapters +16 and 17: "This people is new and there is a divine admixture +in it." The Christian writings are recommended to the emperor.</p> + +<p><i>Justin.</i><a id="footnotetag352" name="footnotetag352"></a><a href="#footnote352"><sup>352</sup></a> In his treatise addressed to the emperor Justin did +not call himself a philosopher as Aristides had done. In espousing +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page180" id="page180"></a>[pg 180]</span> +the cause of the hated and despised Christians he represented +himself as a simple member of that sect. But in the +very first sentence of his Apology he takes up the ground of +piety and philosophy, the very ground taken up by the pious +and philosophical emperors themselves, according to the judgment +of the time and their own intention. In addressing them +he appeals to the λογος σωφρων in a purely Stoic fashion. He +opposes the truth—also in the Stoic manner—to the δοξαις +παλαιων.<a id="footnotetag353" name="footnotetag353"></a><a href="#footnote353"><sup>353</sup></a> It was not to be a mere <i>captatio benevolentiæ</i>. In +that case Justin would not have added: "That ye are pious +and wise and guardians of righteousness and friends of culture, +ye hear everywhere. Whether ye are so, however, will be +shown."<a id="footnotetag354" name="footnotetag354"></a><a href="#footnote354"><sup>354</sup></a> His whole exordium is calculated to prove to the +emperors that they are in danger of repeating a hundredfold +the crime which the judges of Socrates had committed.<a id="footnotetag355" name="footnotetag355"></a><a href="#footnote355"><sup>355</sup></a> Like +a second Socrates Justin speaks to the emperors in the name +of all Christians. They are to hear the convictions of the wisest +of the Greeks from the mouth of the Christians. Justin wishes +to enlighten the emperor with regard to the life and doctrines +(βιος και μαθηματα) of the latter. Nothing is to be concealed, +for there is nothing to conceal.</p> + +<p>Justin kept this promise better than any of his successors. +For that very reason also he did not depict the Christian +Churches as schools of philosophers (cc. 61-67). Moreover, +in the first passage where he speaks of Greek philosophers,<a id="footnotetag356" name="footnotetag356"></a><a href="#footnote356"><sup>356</sup></a> he +is merely drawing a parallel. According to him there are bad +Christians and seeming Christians, just as there are philosophers +who are only so in name and outward show. Such men, too, +were in early times called "philosophers" even when they +preached atheism. To all appearance, therefore, Justin does +<i>not</i> desire Christians to be reckoned as philosophers. But it is +nevertheless significant that, in the case of the Christians, a +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page181" id="page181"></a>[pg 181]</span> +phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed +in the case of philosophers; and how were those whom he was +addressing to understand him? In the same passage he speaks +for the first time of Christ. He introduces him with the plain +and intelligible formula: 'ο διδασκαλος Χριστος ("the teacher +Christ").<a id="footnotetag357" name="footnotetag357"></a><a href="#footnote357"><sup>357</sup></a> Immediately thereafter he praises Socrates because +he had exposed the worthlessness and deceit of the evil demons, +and traces his death to the same causes which are now he says +bringing about the condemnation of the Christians. Now he +can make his final assertion. In virtue of "reason" Socrates +exposed superstition; in virtue of the same reason, this was +done by the teacher whom the Christians follow. <i>But this +teacher was reason itself; it was visible in him, and indeed it +appeared bodily in him.</i><a id="footnotetag358" name="footnotetag358"></a><a href="#footnote358"><sup>358</sup></a></p> + +<p>Is this philosophy or is it myth? The greatest paradox the +Apologist has to assert is connected by him with the most +impressive remembrance possessed by his readers as philosophers. +In the same sentence where he represents Christ as the +Socrates of the barbarians,<a id="footnotetag359" name="footnotetag359"></a><a href="#footnote359"><sup>359</sup></a> and consequently makes Christianity +out to be a Socratic doctrine, he propounds the unheard of +theory <i>that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason of God</i>.</p> + +<p>Justin nowhere tried to soften the effect of this conviction or +explain it in a way adapted to his readers. Nor did he conceal +from them that his assertion admits of no speculative +demonstration. That philosophy can only deal with things +which ever are, because they ever were, since this world began, +is a fact about which he himself is perfectly clear. No Stoic +could have felt more strongly than Justin how paradoxical is the +assertion that a thing is of value which has happened only +once. Certain as he is that the "reasonable" emperors will +regard it as a rational assumption that "Reason" is the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page182" id="page182"></a>[pg 182]</span> +Son of God,<a id="footnotetag360" name="footnotetag360"></a><a href="#footnote360"><sup>360</sup></a> he knows equally well that no philosophy will +bear him out in that other assertion, and that such a statement +is seemingly akin to the contemptible myths of the evil demons.</p> + +<p>But there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is +nevertheless sure. The same ancient documents, which contain +the Socratic and super-Socratic wisdom of the Christians, bear +witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, +admit of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the incarnate +reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even +in the minutest details. Moreover, in so far as these writings +are in the lawful possession of the Christians, and announced +at the very beginning of things that this community would +appear on the earth, they testify that the Christians may in a +certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the +world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this +thought is still wanting in Aristides).</p> + +<p>The new Socrates who appeared among the barbarians is +therefore quite different from the Socrates of the Greeks, and +for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with +the disciples of the philosophers.<a id="footnotetag361" name="footnotetag361"></a><a href="#footnote361"><sup>361</sup></a> From the very beginning +of things a world-historical dispensation of God announced this +reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible +appearance of reason itself. The same reason which created +and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the +whole of humanity to itself. Every precaution has been taken +to make it easy for any one, be he Greek or barbarian, educated +or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, +to verify their truth, and test their power in life. What further +importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how +can one think of calling this a philosophy?</p> + +<p>And yet the doctrine of the Christians can only be compared +with philosophy. For, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page183" id="page183"></a>[pg 183]</span> +guided by the Logos; and, conversely, what the Christians +teach concerning the Father of the world, the destiny of man, +the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and +recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the Greeks. +They indeed only stammered, whereas the Christians speak. +These, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, +but speak with the words and through the power of reason. +The wonderful arrangement, carried out by the Logos himself, +through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its +consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth +to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom +as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin? +How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can +exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed +the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment +doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable +has revealed itself, it has always been through the operation +of the <i>divine</i> reason. For man's lofty endowment consists in +his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within +him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge +of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint +of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers +his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, +the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and +through him. As man's possession conferred on him at the +creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power +which dominates and determines his nature.<a id="footnotetag362" name="footnotetag362"></a><a href="#footnote362"><sup>362</sup></a> All that is reasonable +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page184" id="page184"></a>[pg 184]</span> +is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his true destiny +man requires from the beginning the inward working of that +divine reason which has created the world for the sake of man, +and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God.<a id="footnotetag363" name="footnotetag363"></a><a href="#footnote363"><sup>363</sup></a></p> + +<p>Apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. But +this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits +it. Revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. +For no one who merely possessed the "seed of the Logos" +(σπερμα του λογου), though it may have been his exclusive guide +to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole +truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates +and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot +be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with +unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever +the whole Logos has not been acting; for man's natural endowment +with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and +of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page185" id="page185"></a>[pg 185]</span> +therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos +spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in +Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect +embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness, +and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the Logos Christ, +all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human +wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos. +The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and +kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a +special revelation. It is true that this revelation is nothing new, +and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in +character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense +nothing extraordinary. <i>It is the divine help granted to man, +who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling +him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. By +the appearance of Christ this help became accessible to all men.</i> +The dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated +ideas. If the former did not exist, the latter would not be +necessary. According as we form a lower or higher estimate +of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation +rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give +the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more +than impart the power that develops and matures the inalienable +natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion +of the demons.</p> + +<p>Accordingly the teaching of the prophets and Christ is related +even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to +the part,<a id="footnotetag364" name="footnotetag364"></a><a href="#footnote364"><sup>364</sup></a> or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page186" id="page186"></a>[pg 186]</span> +as the permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has +now arrived and Christianity is destined to put an end to +natural human philosophy. When the perfect work is there, +the fragmentary must cease. Justin gave the clearest expression +to this conviction. Christianity, <i>i.e.</i>, the prophetic teaching +attested by Christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the +human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to +it may be called Christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more +than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the +speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled +with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable +certainty.<a id="footnotetag365" name="footnotetag365"></a><a href="#footnote365"><sup>365</sup></a> The practical conclusion drawn in Justin's treatise +from this exposition is that the Christians are at least entitled +to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I. +7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable +because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such +people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set +forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.<a id="footnotetag366" name="footnotetag366"></a><a href="#footnote366"><sup>366</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page187" id="page187"></a>[pg 187]</span> + +<p>In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant +for heathen readers, Justin ceased to employ the idea of the +existence of a "seed of the Logos implanted by nature" (σπερμα λογου εμφυτον) +in every man. From this fact we recognise that +he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. He +indeed calls the Christian religion a philosophy;<a id="footnotetag367" name="footnotetag367"></a><a href="#footnote367"><sup>367</sup></a> but, in so far +as this is the case, it is "the only sure and saving philosophy." +No doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but +they are incapable of giving correct answers. For the Deity, +who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone +makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he +reveals himself. True wisdom is therefore exclusively based on +revelation. Hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page188" id="page188"></a>[pg 188]</span> +because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.<a id="footnotetag368" name="footnotetag368"></a><a href="#footnote368"><sup>368</sup></a> +The Christian is <i>the</i> philosopher,<a id="footnotetag369" name="footnotetag369"></a><a href="#footnote369"><sup>369</sup></a> because the followers of Plato +and the Stoics are virtually no philosophers. In applying the +title "philosophy" to Christianity he therefore does not mean +to bring Christians and philosophers more closely together. No +doubt, however, he asserts that the Christian doctrine, which is +founded on the knowledge of Christ and leads to blessedness,<a id="footnotetag370" name="footnotetag370"></a><a href="#footnote370"><sup>370</sup></a> +is in accordance with reason.</p> + +<p><i>Athenagoras.</i> The petition on behalf of Christians, which +Athenagoras, "the Christian philosopher of Athens," presented, +to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, nowhere +expressly designates Christianity as a philosophy, and still less +does it style the Christians philosophers.<a id="footnotetag371" name="footnotetag371"></a><a href="#footnote371"><sup>371</sup></a> But, at the very +beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian +doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic +tenets.<a id="footnotetag372" name="footnotetag372"></a><a href="#footnote372"><sup>372</sup></a> In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes +nothing but practical atheism,<a id="footnotetag373" name="footnotetag373"></a><a href="#footnote373"><sup>373</sup></a> and that the "atheism" of the +Christians is a doctrine about God such as had been propounded +by the most distinguished philosophers—Pythagoreans, Platonists, +Peripatetics, and Stoics—who, moreover, were permitted to +write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the "Deity."<a id="footnotetag374" name="footnotetag374"></a><a href="#footnote374"><sup>374</sup></a> +The Apologist concedes even more: "If philosophers did not +also acknowledge the existence of one God, if they did not +also conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly +matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly +expelled as aliens."<a id="footnotetag375" name="footnotetag375"></a><a href="#footnote375"><sup>375</sup></a> He therefore takes up the standpoint that +the state is justified in refusing to tolerate people with completely +new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes +that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page189" id="page189"></a>[pg 189]</span> +and approve<a id="footnotetag376" name="footnotetag376"></a><a href="#footnote376"><sup>376</sup></a> the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely +represents this faith itself as the <i>reasonable</i> doctrine,<a id="footnotetag377" name="footnotetag377"></a><a href="#footnote377"><sup>377</sup></a> and that, +with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves +all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of +account,<a id="footnotetag378" name="footnotetag378"></a><a href="#footnote378"><sup>378</sup></a> there is ground for thinking that this Apologist differs +essentially from Justin in his conception of the relation of +Christianity to secular philosophy.</p> + +<p>Moreover, it is not to be denied that Athenagoras views the +revelation in the prophets and in Christ as completely identical. +But in one very essential point he agrees with Justin; and he +has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch +as he does not introduce the assumption of a "seed +of the Logos implanted by nature" σπερμα λογου εμφυτον. The +philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, +since it was not from God, but rather from themselves, that they +wished to learn about God. True wisdom, however, can only +be learned from God, that is, from his prophets; it depends +solely on revelation.<a id="footnotetag379" name="footnotetag379"></a><a href="#footnote379"><sup>379</sup></a> Here also then we have a repetition of +the thought that the truly reasonable is of supernatural origin. +Such is the importance attached by Athenagoras to this proposition, +that he declares any demonstration of the "reasonable" +to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even +that which is most evidently true—<i>e.g.</i>, monotheism—is not +raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere +of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation.<a id="footnotetag380" name="footnotetag380"></a><a href="#footnote380"><sup>380</sup></a> +This can be done by Christians alone. Hence they are very +different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished +from these by their manner of life.<a id="footnotetag381" name="footnotetag381"></a><a href="#footnote381"><sup>381</sup></a> All the praises which +Athenagoras from time to time bestows on philosophers, particularly +Plato,<a id="footnotetag382" name="footnotetag382"></a><a href="#footnote382"><sup>382</sup></a> are consequently to be understood in a merely +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page190" id="page190"></a>[pg 190]</span> +relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the +claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of +Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring +the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras +also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers, in so far +as the "philosophers" are not such in any true sense. It is only +the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less +clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to +the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals +itself in polytheism,<a id="footnotetag383" name="footnotetag383"></a><a href="#footnote383"><sup>383</sup></a> can only be overthrown by revelation; he +rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary +attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.<a id="footnotetag384" name="footnotetag384"></a><a href="#footnote384"><sup>384</sup></a></p> + +<p><i>Tatian's</i><a id="footnotetag385" name="footnotetag385"></a><a href="#footnote385"><sup>385</sup></a> chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment +of the Christians.<a id="footnotetag386" name="footnotetag386"></a><a href="#footnote386"><sup>386</sup></a> He wished to represent their cause +as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to +error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, +and pretentious emptiness. His "Address to the Greeks" begins +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page191" id="page191"></a>[pg 191]</span> +with a violent polemic against all Greek philosophers. +Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and +philosophy which in Justin's case is still concealed.<a id="footnotetag387" name="footnotetag387"></a><a href="#footnote387"><sup>387</sup></a> Hence it +was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies +between Christians and philosophers. He also no doubt views +Christianity as "reasonable;" he who lives virtuously and follows +wisdom receives it;<a id="footnotetag388" name="footnotetag388"></a><a href="#footnote388"><sup>388</sup></a> but yet it is too sublime to be grasped +by earthly perception.<a id="footnotetag389" name="footnotetag389"></a><a href="#footnote389"><sup>389</sup></a> It is a heavenly thing which depends +on the communication of the "Spirit," and hence can only be +known by revelation.<a id="footnotetag390" name="footnotetag390"></a><a href="#footnote390"><sup>390</sup></a> But yet it is a "philosophy" with definite +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page192" id="page192"></a>[pg 192]</span> +doctrines (δογματα);<a id="footnotetag391" name="footnotetag391"></a><a href="#footnote391"><sup>391</sup></a> it brings nothing new, but only such +blessings as we have already received, but could not retain<a id="footnotetag392" name="footnotetag392"></a><a href="#footnote392"><sup>392</sup></a> +owing to the power of error, <i>i.e.</i>, the dominion of the demons.<a id="footnotetag393" name="footnotetag393"></a><a href="#footnote393"><sup>393</sup></a> +Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of +the Logos revelation through the prophets,<a id="footnotetag394" name="footnotetag394"></a><a href="#footnote394"><sup>394</sup></a> the rational knowledge +that leads to life<a id="footnotetag395" name="footnotetag395"></a><a href="#footnote395"><sup>395</sup></a> is restored. This knowledge was no +less obscured among the Greek philosophers than among the +Greeks generally. In so far as revelation took place among +the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, Christianity may +also be called the barbarian philosophy.<a id="footnotetag396" name="footnotetag396"></a><a href="#footnote396"><sup>396</sup></a> Its truth is proved +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page193" id="page193"></a>[pg 193]</span> +by its ancient date<a id="footnotetag397" name="footnotetag397"></a><a href="#footnote397"><sup>397</sup></a> as well as by its intelligible form, which +enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in +it<a id="footnotetag398" name="footnotetag398"></a><a href="#footnote398"><sup>398</sup></a> to understand it perfectly.<a id="footnotetag399" name="footnotetag399"></a><a href="#footnote399"><sup>399</sup></a> Finally, Tatian also states (c. 40) +that the Greek sophists have read the writings of Moses and +the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. He +therefore maintains the very opposite of what Celsus took upon +him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings +and doctrines of Christ and the Christians from the philosophers. +Both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or +gross misunderstanding. Justin judged more charitably. To +Tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the Greeks did not +appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw +imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.<a id="footnotetag400" name="footnotetag400"></a><a href="#footnote400"><sup>400</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page194" id="page194"></a>[pg 194]</span> + +<p><i>Theophilus</i> agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere +appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious +and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets +(historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere). +However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict each +other (II. 5); but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8: III. 7), +nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of +the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;<a id="footnotetag401" name="footnotetag401"></a><a href="#footnote401"><sup>401</sup></a> +they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they +have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worthless +fame was their aim (III. 3). But God knew beforehand +the "drivellings of these hollow philosophers" and made his +preparations (II. 15). He of old proclaimed the truth by the +mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. +This truth refers to the knowledge of God, the origin and +history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. The prophetic +testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.<a id="footnotetag402" name="footnotetag402"></a><a href="#footnote402"><sup>402</sup></a> +Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the +philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were +inspired by devils.<a id="footnotetag403" name="footnotetag403"></a><a href="#footnote403"><sup>403</sup></a> Thus the most extreme contrasts appear +to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page195" id="page195"></a>[pg 195]</span> +truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks +do not apply, for she is (II. 36): εν Ελλησιν και εν τοις λοιποις +εθνετιν γενομενη προφητις, but that poets and philosophers, +"though against their will," also gave clear utterances regarding +the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of God, as +well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and +the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points +(II. 37, 38, 8 fin.). Theophilus gives a double explanation of +this fact. On the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of +holy writings (II. 12, 37: I. 14), and on the other he admits +that those writers, when the demons abandoned them (τη ψυχη +εκνηψαντες εξ αυτων), of themselves displayed a knowledge of +the divine sovereignty, the judgment etc., which agrees with +the teachings of the prophets (II. 8). This admission need not +cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own +destiny with which man is endowed (II. 27) must infallibly lead +him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as +he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus +did not apply the title of philosophy to Christian truth, this +title being in his view discredited; but Christianity is to him +the "wisdom of God," which by luminous proofs convinces the +men who reflect on their own nature.<a id="footnotetag404" name="footnotetag404"></a><a href="#footnote404"><sup>404</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page196" id="page196"></a>[pg 196]</span> + +<p><i>Tertullian and Minucius Felix.</i><a id="footnotetag405" name="footnotetag405"></a><a href="#footnote405"><sup>405</sup></a> Whilst, in the case of the +Greek Apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears +conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and +by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the +other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the Latin +Apologists, but the Christian truth is even placed in direct opposition +to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical +dogmatism, <i>i.e.</i>, Stoicism.<a id="footnotetag406" name="footnotetag406"></a><a href="#footnote406"><sup>406</sup></a> Nevertheless the observations of Tertullian +and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christianity, +viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom +completely identical with the conception of the Greek Apologists, +although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed +character of Christianity is placed in the background.<a id="footnotetag407" name="footnotetag407"></a><a href="#footnote407"><sup>407</sup></a> The +recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page197" id="page197"></a>[pg 197]</span> +that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists +was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the +conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and +guarantee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and +Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom +implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as +man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of +the "examination of the universe" ("inquisitio universitatis"), +conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he +finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational +order of the world. Accordingly, Minucius is also able to +demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle +of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is +a philosophy, <i>i.e.</i>, the true philosophy, and that philosophers +are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have discovered +the truth.<a id="footnotetag408" name="footnotetag408"></a><a href="#footnote408"><sup>408</sup></a> Moreover, as he represented Christian ethics +to be the expression of the Stoic, and depicted the Christian +bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, +who have become conscious of their natural similarity,<a id="footnotetag409" name="footnotetag409"></a><a href="#footnote409"><sup>409</sup></a> the +revealed character of Christianity appears to be entirely given +up. This religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a +truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the +one God from the open book of creation. The difference between +him and an Apologist like Tatian seems here to be a radical +one. But, if we look more closely, we find that Minucius—and +not less Tertullian—has abandoned Stoic rationalism in vital +points. We may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for +clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page198" id="page198"></a>[pg 198]</span> +himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines +of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather +have already become an essential component of his philosophical +theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a +detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, +27). This was a confession that human nature was not what +it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from +without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4: 16. 5) the +natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked +(32. 9) that our thoughts are darkness when measured by the +clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point, +after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his +doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly +repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the +prophets, and that philosophers "have formed this shadowy picture +of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the +prophets." (34) Here we have now a union of all the elements +already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it +were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that +he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly +contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all +philosophers and indeed on philosophy generally.<a id="footnotetag410" name="footnotetag410"></a><a href="#footnote410"><sup>410</sup></a> (34. 5: 38. 5) +This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian's case, +by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural +perception to all philosophical theory—for this, at most, cannot +have been more than a secondary contributing cause,<a id="footnotetag411" name="footnotetag411"></a><a href="#footnote411"><sup>411</sup></a> but by +the fact that he is conscious of following <i>revealed</i> wisdom.<a id="footnotetag412" name="footnotetag412"></a><a href="#footnote412"><sup>412</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page199" id="page199"></a>[pg 199]</span> +Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from +without, <i>i.e.</i>, by God. In this idea man's need of redemption +is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca +and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings +of the prophets to be divine truth than man's natural endowment +and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. +Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were +not able to find.<a id="footnotetag413" name="footnotetag413"></a><a href="#footnote413"><sup>413</sup></a></p> + +<p>We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows: +(1) Christianity is revelation, <i>i.e.</i>, it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed +of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, +possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised +in the fulfilment of their predictions. As divine wisdom Christianity +is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and +philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment +corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.<a id="footnotetag414" name="footnotetag414"></a><a href="#footnote414"><sup>414</sup></a> +It embraces all the elements of truth in philosophy, whence it +is <i>the</i> philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with +which he is naturally endowed. (3) Revelation of the rational +was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway +of the demons. (4) The efforts of philosophers to ascertain the +right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by +the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought +about a really moral life. Moreover, so far as they discovered +the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page200" id="page200"></a>[pg 200]</span> +it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge +of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts.<a id="footnotetag415" name="footnotetag415"></a><a href="#footnote415"><sup>415</sup></a> +But it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of +the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. +This is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some +extent an imitation of Christian institutions. (5) The confession +of Christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom +of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive +a new content through Christ; he only made it accessible to +the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special +features acknowledged by Justin and Tertullian). (6) The practical +test of Christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons +are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become +veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing +a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. In +the Apologists, therefore, Christianity served itself heir to antiquity, +<i>i.e.</i>, to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the +Greeks: "Οσα ουν παρα πασικαλως ειρηται, 'ημων των Χριστιανων εστι" +(Justin, Apol. II. 13). It traced its origin back to the beginning of the +world. Everything true and good which elevates mankind springs +from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, +because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him +and of his destination (Justin, Apol. I. 46: 'οι μετα λογου βιωσαντες +Χριστιανοι εισι, καν αθεοι ενομισθησαν, οιον εν 'Ελλησι μεν Σωκρατης +και Ηρακλειτος και οι ομοιοι αυτοις, εν βαρβαροις δε Αβρααμ κ.τ.λ., +"those that have lived with reason are Christians, even though +they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus +and those similar to them among the Greeks, and Abraham etc. +among the barbarians"). But everything true and good is +Christian, for Christianity is nothing else than the teaching of +revelation. No second formula can be imagined in which the +claim of Christianity to be the religion of the world is so powerfully +expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page201" id="page201"></a>[pg 201]</span> +reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand, +can we conceive of one where the specific content of traditional +Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the +really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual +culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with +religion. The "dogmas" are the expression of this. Finally, +these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite +idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. +The essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication +through a miraculous inward working. All the media +of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag. +Supplic. 7; Pseudo-Justin, Cohort. 8; Justin, Dialogue 115. 7; +Apol. I. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also Hippolytus, de Christo et +Antichr. 2). These were not necessarily at all times in a state +of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were +no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. The Apologists +had no other idea of revelation. What they therefore viewed +as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the +prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess +this power. It was only in connection with this proof that the +Apologists considered it important to show what Moses, David, +Isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the Old Testament, that is, these +names have only a <i>chronological</i> significance. This also explains +their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest +originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the +beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed +truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, +particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin,<a id="footnotetag416" name="footnotetag416"></a><a href="#footnote416"><sup>416</sup></a> +first detailed argument in Tatian).<a id="footnotetag417" name="footnotetag417"></a><a href="#footnote417"><sup>417</sup></a> If, however, strictly speaking, +it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is +supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of +reason, it is evident that the Apologists simply took the content +of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. So, +whether they expressed themselves in strictly Stoic fashion or +not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page202" id="page202"></a>[pg 202]</span> +and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian +forms no exception, though he himself protests against the idea.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_IV_III" id="SEC_IV_III"></a>3. <i>The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion.</i></h3> + +<p>The Apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or "dogmas" +of Christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy +is included in these dogmas.<a id="footnotetag418" name="footnotetag418"></a><a href="#footnote418"><sup>418</sup></a> According to what we have +already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page203" id="page203"></a>[pg 203]</span> +Christian dogmas. <i>They are the rational truths, revealed by the +prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ</i> +(χριστος λογος και νομος), <i>which in their unity represent the divine +wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal +life.</i> The Apologists considered it their chief task to set forth +these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all +desirable clearness. The dogmatic scheme of the Apologists +may therefore be divided into three component parts. These +are: (A) Christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (God as +the Father of the world); (B) Christianity as the highest morality +and righteousness (God as the judge who rewards goodness and +punishes wickedness); (C) Christianity regarded as redemption +(God as the Good One who assists man and rescues him from +the power of the demons).<a id="footnotetag419" name="footnotetag419"></a><a href="#footnote419"><sup>419</sup></a> Whilst the first two ideas are +expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that +the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. This, as will +afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the Apologists' +doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability +to discover a specific significance for the <i>person</i> of Christ within +the sphere of revelation. Both facts again are ultimately to be +explained from their moralism.</p> + +<p>The essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the +Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines.<a id="footnotetag420" name="footnotetag420"></a><a href="#footnote420"><sup>420</sup></a> First, +there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted God, who is +Lord and Father of the world. Secondly, he requires a holy +life. Thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward +the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. +The teaching concerning God, virtue, and eternal reward is traced +to the prophets and Christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page204" id="page204"></a>[pg 204]</span> +life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men +themselves; for God has created man free, and virtue can only +be acquired by man's own efforts. The prophets and Christ are +therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. +But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here +discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the +Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a +virtuous walk in the longing after eternal and perfect life with +God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. +By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes +righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss. This knowledge, +which has the character of divine instruction,<a id="footnotetag421" name="footnotetag421"></a><a href="#footnote421"><sup>421</sup></a> rests on faith in +the divine revelation. This revelation has the nature and power +of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without +it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, +whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the Spirit of God +to put them to flight. Accordingly, the dogmas of Christian +philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and +practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation +of the world and as a new order of society.<a id="footnotetag422" name="footnotetag422"></a><a href="#footnote422"><sup>422</sup></a> The goal +is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation +of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the +cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as +they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely +worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology +and ethics.</p> + +<p>1. The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the +world are dominated by the fundamental idea that the world as the +created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page205" id="page205"></a>[pg 205]</span> +self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause +of the world. This self-existing Being has none of the attributes +which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name +and has in himself no distinctions. This implies, first, the unity +and uniqueness of this eternal Being; secondly, his spiritual +nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, +his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. +Since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, +he is the fulness of all being or true being itself +(Tatian 5: καθο πασα δυναμις ορατων τε και αορατων αυτος 'υποστασις +ην, συν αυτω τα παντα). As the living and spiritual Being +he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his +omnipotence and wisdom, <i>i.e.</i>, his operative reason. These creations +are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the Deity, for they +can be no result of necessities, in so far as God is in himself +perfect. Just because he is perfect, the Eternal Essence is also +the Father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture +of what is defective. These virtues include both the goodness +which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness +which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance +with the position he has received. On the basis of this train +of thought the Apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy +of God (των 'ολων το μοναρχικον), his supramundaneness (το αρρητον, +το ανεκφραστον, το αχωρητον, το ακαταληπτον, το απερινοητον, το +ασυγκριτον, το ασυμβιβαστον, το ανεκδιηγητον; see Justin, Apol. +II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity (εις Θεος); his having no beginning +(αναρχος, 'οτι αγενητος); his eternity and unchangeableness (αναλλοιωτος +καθοτι αθανατος); his perfection (τελειος); his need of +nothing (απροσδεης); his spiritual nature (πνευμα 'ο Θεος); his +absolute causality (αυτος 'υπαρχων του παντος 'η 'υποστασις, the +motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity +(κτιστης των παντων); his sovereignty (δεσποτης των 'ολων); his +fatherhood (πατηρ δια το ειναι αυτον προ των 'ολων) his reason-power +(God as λογος, νους, πνευμα, σοφια); his omnipotence +(παντοκρατωρ 'οτι αυτος τα παντα κρατει και εμπεριεχει); his +righteousness and goodness (πατηρ της δικαιοσυνης και πασων των +αρετων χρηστοτης). These dogmas are set forth by one Apologist +in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page206" id="page206"></a>[pg 206]</span> +but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily +to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of +moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the +principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal +and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. +In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas +are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that, +as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.<a id="footnotetag423" name="footnotetag423"></a><a href="#footnote423"><sup>423</sup></a></p> + +<p>These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apologists +from the standpoint of the Christian Church which is +awaiting an introduction into the Kingdom of God; but were +deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand +(see particularly Tatian, 4; Theophilus, I. 5, 6), and of the +moral nature of man on the other. But, in so far as the latter +itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the +starting-point of their speculations. This is everywhere dominated +by reason and order;<a id="footnotetag424" name="footnotetag424"></a><a href="#footnote424"><sup>424</sup></a> it bears the impress of the divine Logos, +and that in a double sense. On the one hand it appears as +the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient +and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of +spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product +of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its +basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by +God,<a id="footnotetag425" name="footnotetag425"></a><a href="#footnote425"><sup>425</sup></a> though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world +is in every respect a structure worthy of God.<a id="footnotetag426" name="footnotetag426"></a><a href="#footnote426"><sup>426</sup></a> Nevertheless, +according to the Apologists, the direct author of the world was +not God, but the personified power of reason which they perceived +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page207" id="page207"></a>[pg 207]</span> +in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source +of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest +in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apologists +purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God +from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. +This idea of Philo's cannot at least have been adopted by them +as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with +their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea +of God and their belief in Providence, which is everywhere +firmly maintained. Still less indeed can it be shown that they +were all impelled to this dogma from their view of Jesus Christ, +since in this connection, with the exception of Justin and Tertullian, +they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation +of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the +Logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) The idea of God, +derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of +the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, +which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all +spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were +quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the +transcendence inseparable from the notion of God, this idea was +nevertheless meant to explain the world.<a id="footnotetag427" name="footnotetag427"></a><a href="#footnote427"><sup>427</sup></a> Accordingly, they +required a formula capable of expressing the transcendent and +unchangeable nature of God on the one hand, and his fulness +of creative and spiritual powers on the other. But the latter +attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, +because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious +one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and indeed +the latter was necessarily distinguished from God as a +separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers +residing in God was represented as beginning. <i>The Logos is +the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once +preserves the unity and unchangeableness of God in spite of the +exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very +exercise possible.</i> (2) Though the Apologists believed in the +divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page208" id="page208"></a>[pg 208]</span> +all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be +induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor. +For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; +but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of +all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity +cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet +according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person +was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known +on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine +Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the +Apologists the principle of religion, <i>i.e.</i>, of the knowledge of +the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine +Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must +be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world +itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason +of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive +and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially +point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty +of the Apologists' manner of statement is peculiar here; the +train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that +very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for +in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also +that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea, +though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the +majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Christian +faith is completely exhausted in this proposition. They required +no particular Christology, for in every revelation of God +by his Word they already recognised a proof of his existence +not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as Christianity +<i>in nuce</i>.<a id="footnotetag428" name="footnotetag428"></a><a href="#footnote428"><sup>428</sup></a> But the fact that the Apologists made a distinction +<i>in thesi</i> between the prophetic Spirit of God and the +Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page209" id="page209"></a>[pg 209]</span> +is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of +the Church's faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually +compelled them to identify the Logos and the Spirit, +just as they not unfrequently define Christianity as the belief +in the true God and in his Son, without mentioning the Spirit.<a id="footnotetag429" name="footnotetag429"></a><a href="#footnote429"><sup>429</sup></a> +Further their dependence on the Christian tradition is shown in +the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos +as the <i>Son</i> of God.<a id="footnotetag430" name="footnotetag430"></a><a href="#footnote430"><sup>430</sup></a></p> + +<p>The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page210" id="page210"></a>[pg 210]</span> +one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, αλογος, +but as the fulness of all reason,<a id="footnotetag431" name="footnotetag431"></a><a href="#footnote431"><sup>431</sup></a> he has always Logos in himself. +This Logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness +itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which +the world is due; he is not separate from God, but is contained +in his essence.<a id="footnotetag432" name="footnotetag432"></a><a href="#footnote432"><sup>432</sup></a> For the sake of the creation God produced +(sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he engendered<a id="footnotetag433" name="footnotetag433"></a><a href="#footnote433"><sup>433</sup></a> +him from his essence by a free and simple act of +will (Θεος εκ Θεου πεφυκως εξ 'εαυτου. Dial. 61). Then for the +first time the Logos became a hypostasis separate from God, +or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue +of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:<a id="footnotetag434" name="footnotetag434"></a><a href="#footnote434"><sup>434</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page211" id="page211"></a>[pg 211]</span> +(1) The inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence +of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God, +willed and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not +cut off and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in +him. He is rather the independent product of the self-unfolding +of God (οικονομια), which product, though it is the epitome of +divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the Father of this +attribute. The Logos is the revelation of God, and the visible +God. Consequently the Logos is really God and Lord, <i>i.e.</i>, he +possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. The Apologists, +however, only know of one kind of divine nature and +this is that which belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment +when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the +Father; he is αριθμω ετερον τι, Θεος 'ετερος, Θεος δευτερος ("something +different in number, another God, a second God.") But +his personality only dates from that moment. "Fuit tempus, +cum patri filius non fuit," ("there was a time when the Father +had no Son," so Tertullian, adv. Hermog. 3). The λογος προφορικος +is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father, +the λογος ενδιαθετος is not.<a id="footnotetag435" name="footnotetag435"></a><a href="#footnote435"><sup>435</sup></a> (3) The Logos has an origin, the +Father has not; hence it follows that in relation to God the +Logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created +God, the God who has a beginning. Wherefore in rank he is +below God (εν δευτερα χωρα—δευτερος Θεος, "in the second place, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page212" id="page212"></a>[pg 212]</span> +and a second God"), the messenger and servant of God. The +subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of +his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures, +however, the Logos is the αρχη, <i>i.e.</i>, not only the beginning but +the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to +receive being. As an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished +from all creatures, for he alone is the Son;<a id="footnotetag436" name="footnotetag436"></a><a href="#footnote436"><sup>436</sup></a> but, as having a +beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the +paradoxical expression, εργον πρωτοτοκον του πατρος ("first begotten +work of the Father"), is here the most appropriate +designation. (4) In virtue of his finite origin, it is possible +and proper for the Logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak, +and to appear. As he arose for the sake of the creation of the +world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation +which does not belong to the infinite God; nay, his whole +essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and +deed. Behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the Father +stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the +incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable +God.<a id="footnotetag437" name="footnotetag437"></a><a href="#footnote437"><sup>437</sup></a></p> + +<p>With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the +realisation of the idea of the world. The world as κοσμος +νοητος is contained in the Logos. But the world is material +and manifold, the Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page213" id="page213"></a>[pg 213]</span> +Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a +certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the expression +"beget" γενναν for the creation of the world, but in +connections which do not admit of any importance being attached +to this use. The world was created out of nothing after a host +of spirits, as is assumed by most Apologists, had been created +along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The +purpose of the creation of the world was and is the production +of men, <i>i.e.</i>, beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with +reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God; +beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of +God. Everything is created for man's sake, and his own creation +is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of +soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable +either of death or immortality.<a id="footnotetag438" name="footnotetag438"></a><a href="#footnote438"><sup>438</sup></a> The condition on which +men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines, +that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot +be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the +free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world +will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into +existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in +principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have +the less occasion to give the details here, because they are +known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially +Philo's, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, however, +are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of God and +the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most +essential part of Christianity itself.<a id="footnotetag439" name="footnotetag439"></a><a href="#footnote439"><sup>439</sup></a> This conception is really +not peculiar to the Apologists: in the second century the great +majority of Christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page214" id="page214"></a>[pg 214]</span> +the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part +of the Christian religion. The theoretical view of the world as +a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beauty; the +certainty that all this had been called into existence by an +Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass +away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, +were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously +coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and +theogonies of antiquity.</p> + +<p>2. Their clear system of morality is in keeping with their +relatively simple cosmology. In giving man reason and freedom +as an inalienable possession God destined him for incorruptibility +(αθανασια, αφθαρσια), by the attainment of which he was to become +a being similar to God.<a id="footnotetag440" name="footnotetag440"></a><a href="#footnote440"><sup>440</sup></a> To the gift of imperishability God, +however, attached the condition of man's preserving τα της +αθανασιας ("the things of immortality"), <i>i.e.</i>, preserving the +knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of +the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just; +moreover, nobody can fulfil it in man's stead, for an essential +feature of virtue is its being free, independent action. Man +must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge +that he is only in this way obedient to the Father of the world +and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. The conception +of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which +cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness +consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the +sensuous, but in living solely, after the Spirit, and imitating the +perfection and purity of God. Moral badness is giving way to +any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. The +Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in +man's renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and +body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page215" id="page215"></a>[pg 215]</span> +in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder +way. Tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves +of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the +same in all. The moral law of nature of which the Apologists +speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most +beautiful way in the sayings of Jesus,<a id="footnotetag441" name="footnotetag441"></a><a href="#footnote441"><sup>441</sup></a> calls upon man to raise +himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union +with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural +connections. It is not so much the law of love that is to rule +everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it +is the law governing the perfect and sublime Spirit, who, as +being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for +the world. Raised already in this knowledge beyond time and +space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of God, even +while upon the earth, is to hasten to the Father of Light. By equanimity, +absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the +necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has +already risen above the transient through gazing on the imperishable +and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though +the latter still be. If thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the +test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,<a id="footnotetag442" name="footnotetag442"></a><a href="#footnote442"><sup>442</sup></a> he may be +sure that in the life to come God will bestow on him the gift +of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of God +together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.<a id="footnotetag443" name="footnotetag443"></a><a href="#footnote443"><sup>443</sup></a> +Conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and +in this punishment the righteousness of God is quite as plainly +manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life.</p> + +<p>3. While it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page216" id="page216"></a>[pg 216]</span> +is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will +of God, <i>i.e.</i>, knows and judges of God and all things as they +must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments +of God. This presupposes a revelation of God through the +Logos. A revelation of God, complete in itself and mediated +by the Logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution +of man, he being created in his Maker's image.<a id="footnotetag444" name="footnotetag444"></a><a href="#footnote444"><sup>444</sup></a> But experience +has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable +men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction +of evil demons, who, by God's sufferance, took possession of the +world, and availed themselves of man's sensuous side to draw +him away from the contemplation of the divine and lead him +to the earthly.<a id="footnotetag445" name="footnotetag445"></a><a href="#footnote445"><sup>445</sup></a> The results of this temptation appeared in the +facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected +to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and +therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment +and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page217" id="page217"></a>[pg 217]</span> +God.<a id="footnotetag446" name="footnotetag446"></a><a href="#footnote446"><sup>446</sup></a> Hence it required fresh efforts of the Logos to free +men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable +necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. For +very few are now able to recognise the one true God from +the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in +themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons +ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues +of God. Therefore the Almighty in his goodness employed +new means through the Logos to call men back from the error +of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon +earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before +the end has yet come. From the earliest times the Logos (the +Spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls +pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of +the truth (with reference to God, freedom, virtue, the demons, +the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them +to others. These are his "prophets." Such men are rare among +the Greeks (and according to some not found at all), but +numerous among the barbarians, <i>i.e.</i>, among the Jewish people. +Taught by God, they announced the truth about him, and +under the promptings of the Logos they also committed the +revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are +an authentic record of the whole truth.<a id="footnotetag447" name="footnotetag447"></a><a href="#footnote447"><sup>447</sup></a> To some of the most +virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form +and gave directions. He then is a Christian, who receives and +follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed +afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present +time, and are summed up in the Old Testament. Such a one +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page218" id="page218"></a>[pg 218]</span> +is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the +demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality.</p> + +<p>With the majority of the Apologists "Christianity" seems to +be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider +it necessary to mention <i>ex professo</i> the appearance of the +Logos in Christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). But, while it is certain +that they all recognised that the teachings of the prophets +contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be quite +wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history +of Christ as of no significance. In their presentations some of +them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most +rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no +notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications +show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos +in Christ as of special moment.<a id="footnotetag448" name="footnotetag448"></a><a href="#footnote448"><sup>448</sup></a> For the prophetic utterances, +as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic +teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may +accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for +error. The strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment +of prophecy. Since no man is able to foretell what is +to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine +proves its divine origin. God, in his extraordinary goodness, +not only inspired the prophets, through the Logos, with the +doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous +predictions in their mouth. These predictions were detailed and +manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged +appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of +history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the predictions +had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets +were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness +of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page219" id="page219"></a>[pg 219]</span> +however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the +most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment +of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass +(judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the +truth of the prophetic teachings about God, freedom, virtue, +immortality, etc. In the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy +even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction +is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to +something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occurrences +which always take place. Accordingly, a part of what +was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the +history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the +future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened +"that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled." Because the +prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ's destiny attests +the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however, +depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth +that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a +reality and not a fancy.<a id="footnotetag449" name="footnotetag449"></a><a href="#footnote449"><sup>449</sup></a> But prophecy testifies that Christ is +the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human +form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is +recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular, +and the book at the same time declares that this predicted +One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying +of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features +of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked +by Christ in the history of God's revelation, the content of +which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, +because in it the "truth along with the proof" has appeared. +This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive +and convinces more men than formerly, especially since +Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page220" id="page220"></a>[pg 220]</span> +truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous +life, the principles of which have now become known in the +whole world through the spread of his precepts.</p> + +<p>These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apologies; +and they accordingly seem neither to have contemplated +a redemption by Christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor +to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the +Logos in Jesus. Christ accomplished salvation as a divine <i>teacher</i>, +that is to say, his teaching brings about the αλλαγη and επανγωγη +of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. +This also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. Logically +considered, the individual portions of the history of Jesus (of +the baptismal confession) have no direct significance in respect +to salvation. Hence the teachings of the Christians seem to +fall into two groups having no inward connection, <i>i.e.</i>, the propositions +treating of the rational knowledge of God, and the +predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines +and the believing hopes they include.</p> + +<p>But Justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine +the historical statements regarding Christ with the philosophical +and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive Jesus as +the Redeemer.<a id="footnotetag450" name="footnotetag450"></a><a href="#footnote450"><sup>450</sup></a> Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of +succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical +theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the "scientific +theology of facts," Justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer +of Church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. +(1) He tried to distinguish between the appearance of the Logos +in pre-Christian times and in Christ; he emphasised the fact +that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the +manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page221" id="page221"></a>[pg 221]</span> +Justin showed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon +of the Logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity +of Christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression +made by his personality.<a id="footnotetag451" name="footnotetag451"></a><a href="#footnote451"><sup>451</sup></a> (3) In addition to the story of the +exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his +history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism +and the Lord's Supper) and tried to give them a positive +significance.<a id="footnotetag452" name="footnotetag452"></a><a href="#footnote452"><sup>452</sup></a> He adopted the common Christian saying that +the blood of Christ cleanses believers and men are healed through +his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the +cross. (4) He accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins +through Christ and confessed that men are changed, through +the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance +into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of +sins.<a id="footnotetag453" name="footnotetag453"></a><a href="#footnote453"><sup>453</sup></a> Von Engelhardt has, however, quite rightly noticed that +these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding +to them in the general system of thought, because Justin remains +convinced that the knowledge of the true God, of his will, and +of his promises, or the certainty that God will always grant +forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, +is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. Owing +to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, +"perfect philosophy," "divine teacher," "new law," "freedom," +"repentance," "sinless life," "sure hope," "reward," "immortality," +the ideas, "forgiveness of sins," "redemption," "reconciliation," +"new birth," "faith" (in the Pauline sense) must remain +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page222" id="page222"></a>[pg 222]</span> +words,<a id="footnotetag454" name="footnotetag454"></a><a href="#footnote454"><sup>454</sup></a> or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.<a id="footnotetag455" name="footnotetag455"></a><a href="#footnote455"><sup>455</sup></a> +Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. +Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings +of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of Christ, +and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but +also as the "Lord and Redeemer." In two points he actually +succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus +Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future +judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give +what he has promised—a life after death free from sufferings +and sins, that is the first point. The other thing, however, +which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now +reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of +the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and +vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present +time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ.<a id="footnotetag456" name="footnotetag456"></a><a href="#footnote456"><sup>456</sup></a> So the +redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, +and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely +intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but +denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far +as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through Christ +and in his strength. Jesus Christ, the teacher of the whole +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page223" id="page223"></a>[pg 223]</span> +truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and +the divine, the only being who has understood how to call +men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture +into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples +go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons +are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish +as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine +reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies +the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth, +Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later +Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced +in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, however, +Justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, +viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, <i>i.e.</i>, +immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the Logos, in +so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of +the whole mortal nature of man. With Justin, indeed, as with +the other Apologists, the "salvation" (σωτηρια) consists essentially +in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been +created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to +the natural destiny of "death;" and Christ is regarded as the +bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its +goal; but as a rule Justin does not go beyond this thought. +Yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical +and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the +incarnation. See particularly the fragment in Irenæus (already +quoted on page 220), which may be thus interpreted, and Apol. +I. 66. This conception, in its most complete shape, would have +to be attributed to Justin if the fragment V. (Otto, Corp. Apol. III. +p. 256) were genuine.<a id="footnotetag457" name="footnotetag457"></a><a href="#footnote457"><sup>457</sup></a> But the precise form of the presentation +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page224" id="page224"></a>[pg 224]</span> +makes this very improbable. The question as to how, <i>i.e.</i>, in +what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal +nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apologists: +it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. Their +great object was to assure the belief in immortality. "Religion +and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection +from the dead. The fact that the Christian religion, as +faith in the incarnate Son of God the creator, leads to the assurance +that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness +with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential +advantage possessed by the Christian religion over all others. +The righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all +their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain +knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will +consign the unjust to eternal torment." The philosophical +doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality became through the +Apologists the certain content of a world-wide religion, which +is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made +Christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without +abandoning in word at least the old "teachings and knowledge" +(διδαγματα και μαθηματα) of the Christians. They thus marked +out the task of "dogmatic" and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena +for every future theological system in the Church (see Von +Engelhardt's concluding observations in his "Christenthum Justin's" +pp. 447-490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift, +1880, pp. 499-505.) At the same time, however, they adhered +to the early-Christian eschatology (see Justin, Melito, and, +with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page225" id="page225"></a>[pg 225]</span> +generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early +Christianity.<a id="footnotetag458" name="footnotetag458"></a><a href="#footnote458"><sup>458</sup></a></p> + + +<h3><i>Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin's Doctrines.</i></h3> + +<p>1. The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that +there can only be one and the same relation on earth between +God and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the +creation. This thought, which presupposes the idea of God's +unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical +and mythological consideration. According to it grace can be +nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent +in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its +form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, +just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin, +which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as +error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as +man only possessed the "germs of the Logos" (σπερματα του +λογου) and on the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which +was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul +and mighty demons have possession of the world. The mythological +idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the +only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. So far as Christianity +is something different from morality, it is the antithesis +of the service and sovereignty of the demons. Hence the idea +that the course of the world and mankind require in some +measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought +of revelation or redemption. The necessity of revelation and +redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive +way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. +Accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which +would give a fresh attestation to old truth, but they yearned +for a force, a real redemption, a <i>præsens numen</i>, and some new +thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page226" id="page226"></a>[pg 226]</span> +Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter's idea of revelation +with that of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought +of redemption would have found stronger expression among +them also, had not the task of <i>proof</i>, which could be best discharged +by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious +rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the highest +good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immortality +is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge—which +is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind,—that +necessarily leads to immortality. We can only find traces of +the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal +condition is the <i>prius</i> and the knowledge the <i>posterius</i>. +But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism +is broken through, and we can now point to a +specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation +and redemption. Corresponding to the general development +of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism +(transition from the second to the third century), a displacement +in this direction can also be noticed in the history of +Greek apologetics (in the West it was different); but this displacement +was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly +traced. Even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic +science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being +the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), +a circumstance which is evident, for example, from the almost +complete disregard of the New Testament canon of Scripture +and from other considerations besides.</p> + +<p>2. In so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness +has been implanted by God in men, and in so far as—apart +from trifling exceptions—they can actually succeed in doing +what is good only through prophetic, <i>i.e.</i>, divine, revelations and +exhortations, some Apologists, following the early Christian +tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the +sinner into a righteous man as a work of God, and speak of +renewal and regeneration. The latter, however, as a real fact, +is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin +and turning to God, is a matter of free will. As in Justin, so +also in Tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page227" id="page227"></a>[pg 227]</span> +divine call to repentance. The conception of the forgiveness +of sins is also determined in accordance with this. Only those +sins can be forgiven, <i>i.e.</i>, overlooked, which are really none, +<i>i.e.</i>, which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the +demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. The blotting out of +these sins is effected in baptism, "which is the bath of regeneration +in so far as it is the voluntary consecration of one's own +person. The cleansing which takes place is God's work in so +far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man +who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of +God is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, +that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his +previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge +to which the baptised person has attained." If, as all this seems +to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears +virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus +(Justin and Tatian) and Justin's conception of the Lord's Supper +show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that +is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augustine's +assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old +Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed +in the <i>opuscula</i> as in the <i>prayers</i>, shows correct insight.</p> + +<p>3. All the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the +virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title +of <i>the new law</i>. In virtue of its eternally valid content this +new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because Christ +and the prophets were preceded by Moses, who inculcated on +the Jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. It +is also new because, being proclaimed by the Logos that appeared +in Christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness +and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of +reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof—the proof +from prophecy. The old law is consequently a new one because +it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, +and final. The commandment of love to one's neighbour +also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still +less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, +and imitation). The content of all moral demands is comprehended +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page228" id="page228"></a>[pg 228]</span> +in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which +is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, +even of life itself. Tatian preached this renunciation in a specially +powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains +of Judæo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas +about the new law. It is not Judæo-Christianity that lies behind +the Christianity and doctrines of the Apologists, but Greek +philosophy (Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, +Platonic and Stoic ethics), the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, +the maxims of Jesus, and the religious speech of the Christian +Churches. Justin is distinguished from Philo by the sure conviction +of the living power of God, the Creator and Lord of +the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the +ideals which is derived from the person of Christ. We ought +not, however, to blame the Apologists because to them nearly +everything historical was at bottom only a guarantee of thoughts +and hopes. As a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important +than the content. By dint of thinking one can conceive +the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out +the certainty of its reality. No positive religion can do more +for its followers than faith in the revelation through Christ and +the prophets did for the Apologists. Although it chiefly proved +to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and +which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the +Church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of +Plato and Zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that +their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more +lively and worthy one than in the case of the Greek philosophers.</p> + +<p>4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists +founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs: +"they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into +a revealed doctrine."<a id="footnotetag459" name="footnotetag459"></a><a href="#footnote459"><sup>459</sup></a>) If about the middle of the second century +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page229" id="page229"></a>[pg 229]</span> +the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as +a watchword, passport, and <i>tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum)</i>, +and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived +as "doctrine" in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation +must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived +Christianity as the "divine doctrine," and by whom all +its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or +neutralised. As the philosophic schools are held together by +their "laws" (νομοι) as the "dogmas" form the real bond between +the "friends," and as, in addition to this, they are united by +veneration for the founder, so also the Christian Church appeared +to the Apologists as a universal league established by a divine +founder and resting <i>on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth</i>, +a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the +eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common +veneration for the Divine Master. In the "dogmas" of the +Apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the +fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main both +exist separately side by side. It was not till long after this that +intellectualism gained the victory in a Christianity represented by +the clergy. What we here chiefly understand by "intellectualism" +is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind +the commandments of Christian morality and behind the hopes +and faith of the Christian religion, and the connecting of the +two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the +foundation of these commandments and hopes. Thus was created +the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches +and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the +world long ago overthrown by science. The attempt made at +the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from +this amalgamation remained at first without success.</p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote340" name="footnote340"></a><b>Footnote 340:</b><a href="#footnotetag340"> (return) </a><p> +Edition by Otto, 9 Vols., 1876 f. New edition of the Apologists (unfinished; +only Tatian and Athenagoras by Schwarz have yet appeared) in the Texte und +Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. IV. Tzschirner, Geschichte +der Apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., Der Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Ehlers, +Vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis Platonica et Stoica in doctrina +apologetarum habuerit, 1859.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote341" name="footnote341"></a><b>Footnote 341:</b><a href="#footnotetag341"> (return) </a><p> +It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian +Church gave a more full exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apologies. +This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin's, +Tatian's and Melito's esoteric writings. But, whilst recognising this fact, we must +not make the erroneous assumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests +of Justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their Apologies.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote342" name="footnote342"></a><b>Footnote 342:</b><a href="#footnotetag342"> (return) </a><p> +That is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. Where this was +not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, +were readily and joyfully admitted into the <i>catalogus testimoniorum</i> of revealed +truth.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote343" name="footnote343"></a><b>Footnote 343:</b><a href="#footnotetag343"> (return) </a><p> Though these words were already found in the first edition, Clemen (Justin +1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that I spoke here of conscious +intention on the part of the Apologists. Such nonsense of course never occurred to me.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote344" name="footnote344"></a><b>Footnote 344:</b><a href="#footnotetag344"> (return) </a><p> Note here particularly the attitude of Tatian, who has already introduced a +certain amount of the "Gnostic" element into his "Oratio ad Græcos," although, +he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote345" name="footnote345"></a><b>Footnote 345:</b><a href="#footnotetag345"> (return) </a><p> Since the time of Josephus Greek philosophers had ever more and more +acknowledged the "philosophical" character of Judaism; see Porphyr., de abstin. +anim. II. 26, 'ατε φιλοσοφοι το γενος οντες.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote346" name="footnote346"></a><b>Footnote 346:</b><a href="#footnotetag346"> (return) </a><p> +On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, of Siegfried, +Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote347" name="footnote347"></a><b>Footnote 347:</b><a href="#footnotetag347"> (return) </a><p> +It is very instructive to find Celsus (Origen, c. Cels. I. 2) proceeding to say +that the Greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the +doctrines devised by the barbarians, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. +This is quite in accordance with the idea of Origen, who makes the following +remarks on this point: "When a man trained in the schools and sciences of the +Greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to +be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and +supplement what seems to him defective in it, when tested by the Greek method of +exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of Christianity."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote348" name="footnote348"></a><b>Footnote 348:</b><a href="#footnotetag348"> (return) </a><p> +See the section "Justin und die apostolischen Váter" in Engelhardt's "Christenthum +Justin's des Martyrers," p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd +Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte I. p. 329 ff.). +Engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather under- than +over-estimated them. If the reader compares the exposition given in Book I., +chap. 3, with the theology of the Apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the +intimate relationship that may be traced here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote349" name="footnote349"></a><b>Footnote 349:</b><a href="#footnotetag349"> (return) </a><p> +See Euseb., H. E. IV. 3. Only one sentence of Quadratus' Apology is preserved; +we have now that of Aristides in the Syriac language; moreover, it is proved to +have existed in the original language in the Historia Barlaam et Joasaph; finally, +a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by +Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1891. German translation and +commentary by Raabe in the Texte und Untersuchungen IX. 1892. Eusebius says +that the Apology was handed in to the emperor Hadrian; but the superscription +in Syriac is addressed to the emperor Titus Hadrianus Antoninus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote350" name="footnote350"></a><b>Footnote 350:</b><a href="#footnotetag350"> (return) </a><p>See Hermas, Mand I.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote351" name="footnote351"></a><b>Footnote 351:</b><a href="#footnotetag351"> (return) </a><p> +With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly +Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote352" name="footnote352"></a><b>Footnote 352:</b><a href="#footnotetag352"> (return) </a><p> Semisch, Justin der Martyrer, 2 Vols, 1840 f. Aubé, S Justin, philosophe et +martyre, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsäcker, Die Theologie des Martyrers Justin's in +the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum +Justin's, 1878; id, "Justin," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie. Stählin, Justin der +Martyrer, 1880 Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen +Eudamonismus in Justin's Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des +Christenthums Justin's des Martyrers, 1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justin's, 1848. +Bosse, Der prae istente Christus des Justinus, 1891.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote353" name="footnote353"></a><b>Footnote 353:</b><a href="#footnotetag353"> (return) </a><p>Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote354" name="footnote354"></a><b>Footnote 354:</b><a href="#footnotetag354"> (return) </a><p>Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote355" name="footnote355"></a><b>Footnote 355:</b><a href="#footnotetag355"> (return) </a><p> See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin's Apology +pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato's Apology of +Socrates.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote356" name="footnote356"></a><b>Footnote 356:</b><a href="#footnotetag356"> (return) </a><p>Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq: I. 26.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote357" name="footnote357"></a><b>Footnote 357:</b><a href="#footnotetag357"> (return) </a><p>Apol. I. 4, p. 14.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote358" name="footnote358"></a><b>Footnote 358:</b><a href="#footnotetag358"> (return) </a><p> +Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: +ου σοφιστης 'υπηρχεν αλλα δυναμις Θεου 'ο λογος αυτου ην.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote359" name="footnote359"></a><b>Footnote 359:</b><a href="#footnotetag359"> (return) </a><p> +L.c.: ου γαρ μονον εν 'Ελλησι δια Σωκρατους 'υπο λογου ηλεγχθηταυτα, αλλα +και εν βαρβαροις 'υπ' αυτου του λογου μορφωθεντος και ανθρωπου και Ιησου Χριστου +κληθενος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote360" name="footnote360"></a><b>Footnote 360:</b><a href="#footnotetag360"> (return) </a><p> Celsus also admits this, or rather makes his Jew acknowledge it (Orig., c. +Cels. II. 31). In Book VI. 47 he adopts the proposition of the "ancients" that +the world is the Son of God.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote361" name="footnote361"></a><b>Footnote 361:</b><a href="#footnotetag361"> (return) </a><p> +See Apol. II. 10 fin.: Σωκρατει ουδεις επεισθη 'υπερ τουτου του δογματος +αποθνησκιν +Χριστω δε τω και 'υπο Σωκρατους απο μερους γνωσθεντι ... ου φιλοσοφοι +ουδε φιλολογοι μονον επεισθησαν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote362" name="footnote362"></a><b>Footnote 362:</b><a href="#footnotetag362"> (return) </a><p> The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian +portion of mankind has only a σπερμα του λογον as a natural possession, or +whether this σπερμα has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of +the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that +he did not further discuss the relation between 'ο λογος and +το σπερμα του λογου +and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent +discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to το +εμφυτον παντι γενει +ανθρωπων σπερμα του λογου (Apol. II. 8), the μερος σπερματικου λογου (ibid) +which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human +'ευρεσις και θεωρια +depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they "in human fashion +attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason;" and Socrates is +merely viewed as the παντων ευτονωτερος (ibid.), his philosophy also, +like all pre-Christian +systems, being a φιλοσοφια ανθρωπειος (II. 15). But on the other hand +Christ was known by Socrates though only απο μερους; for "Christ was and is the +Logos who dwells in every man." Further, according to the Apologist, the μερος +του σπερματικου θειου λογου bestows the power of recognising whatever is related +to the Logos (το συγγενες II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: +'οσα +παρα πασι καλως ειρηται 'ημων, των Χριστιανων εστι (ibid.), but, on the strength of +the "participation" in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who +have lived with the Logos (μετα λογου)—an expression which must have been +ambiguous—were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates +and Heraclitus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to +his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying υπο λογου δια +Σωκρατους ηλεγχθη +κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αυτος 'ο λογος did not act in Socrates, for this +only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin +was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15: +alongside of Christianity there is only <i>human</i> philosophy), and which, not without +regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian +authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by +means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the σπορα and +μιμημα of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one's receptivity, +are quite +different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession +and imitation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote363" name="footnote363"></a><b>Footnote 363:</b><a href="#footnotetag363"> (return) </a><p> +"For the sake of man" (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260, Apol I. 8: +"Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of +God, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, because +we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable." +It is frequently asserted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and +awakens courage and strength.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote364" name="footnote364"></a><b>Footnote 364:</b><a href="#footnotetag364"> (return) </a><p> Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (I. 44, 59) +by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers +to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further +use then is the σπερμα λογος εμφυτον? Did Justin not really take it seriously? +Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not +justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of +the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were +in Justin's estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the +σπερμα +λογος εμφυτον when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and +prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the +Apology. That assumption of Justin's is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst +his real opinion was more "liberal."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote365" name="footnote365"></a><b>Footnote 365:</b><a href="#footnotetag365"> (return) </a><p> Compare with this the following passages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a +series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then +follow the words: "If we then in particular respects even teach something similar +to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases +in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way +that the matter is proved etc." In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and +contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The +Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). "Our +doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who +appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason" +(το λογικον το 'ολον, II. 10). +"The principles of Plato are not foreign (αλλοτρια) to the teaching of Christ, +but +they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics" (II. 13). +"We must go forth from the school of Plato" (II. 12). "Socrates convinced no +one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed +by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans +and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ" (II. 10). These are +the very people—and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and +Logos in Justin—among whom it is universally said of Christianity: δυναμις εστι +του αρρητου πατρος και ουχι ανθρωπειου λογου κατασκευη (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote366" name="footnote366"></a><b>Footnote 366:</b><a href="#footnotetag366"> (return) </a><p> +In Justin's estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. +In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal +philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt +referred to in I. 4, 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed +together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion +of II, 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according +to II. 3 fin. (αδυνατον Κυνικω, αδιαφορον το τελος προθεμενω, +το αγαθον ειδεναι πλην +αδικφοριας) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. +This is composed principally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together +with Heraclitus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more +correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described +the Deity and the world more correctly. It is, however, worthy of note—and this +is the second point—that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers +as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another +a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included +under the collective idea "human philosophy," philosophy is characterised by the +conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the +fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, +was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed +great skill in selecting from the Gospels the passages (I. 15-17), that prove the +"philosophical" life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14. Here he cannot +be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, +for instance, +the unqualified statement: 'α εχομεν εις κοινον φεροντες και παντι δεομενω +κοινωνουντες). +The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the "φιλοις παντα +κοινα." Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin's +reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves +notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote367" name="footnote367"></a><b>Footnote 367:</b><a href="#footnotetag367"> (return) </a><p> +Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the Apology, +both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for +Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals +to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were +meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the +Dialogue expressly refers to the Apology.) From Justin's time onward the apologetic +polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. +This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the +form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction +still further in those directed against the Jews.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote368" name="footnote368"></a><b>Footnote 368:</b><a href="#footnotetag368"> (return) </a><p> +Dial. 2. sq. That Justin's Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is +clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote369" name="footnote369"></a><b>Footnote 369:</b><a href="#footnotetag369"> (return) </a><p>Dial. 8: 'ουτως δη και δια ταυτα φιλοσοφος εγω.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote370" name="footnote370"></a><b>Footnote 370:</b><a href="#footnotetag370"> (return) </a><p> +Dial., l.c.: παρεστιν σοι τον Χριστον του Θεου επιγνοντι και τελειω γενομενω +ευδαιμονειν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote371" name="footnote371"></a><b>Footnote 371:</b><a href="#footnotetag371"> (return) </a><p>See particularly the closing chapter.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote372" name="footnote372"></a><b>Footnote 372:</b><a href="#footnotetag372"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 2,</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote373" name="footnote373"></a><b>Footnote 373:</b><a href="#footnotetag373"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote374" name="footnote374"></a><b>Footnote 374:</b><a href="#footnotetag374"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 5-7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote375" name="footnote375"></a><b>Footnote 375:</b><a href="#footnotetag375"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote376" name="footnote376"></a><b>Footnote 376:</b><a href="#footnotetag376"> (return) </a><p>Suppl, 7 fin. and many other places.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote377" name="footnote377"></a><b>Footnote 377:</b><a href="#footnotetag377"> (return) </a><p><i>E.g.</i>, Suppl. 8. 35 fin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote378" name="footnote378"></a><b>Footnote 378:</b><a href="#footnotetag378"> (return) </a><p> The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing +at all is said about Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote379" name="footnote379"></a><b>Footnote 379:</b><a href="#footnotetag379"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote380" name="footnote380"></a><b>Footnote 380:</b><a href="#footnotetag380"> (return) </a><p>Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote381" name="footnote381"></a><b>Footnote 381:</b><a href="#footnotetag381"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote382" name="footnote382"></a><b>Footnote 382:</b><a href="#footnotetag382"> (return) </a><p>Suppl. 23.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote383" name="footnote383"></a><b>Footnote 383:</b><a href="#footnotetag383"> (return) </a><p> +Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon +theory in detail.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote384" name="footnote384"></a><b>Footnote 384:</b><a href="#footnotetag384"> (return) </a><p> +The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellow-emperor +perhaps bore the title: 'υπερ της κατα Χριστιανους φιλοσοφιας (Euseb., H. E. +V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as +'η καθ' 'ημας φιλοσοφια (l.c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is +undeniable that this writer attempted, +to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, +we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression "philosophy." +What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former +times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the +provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, +that as foster-sister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and +that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour +to the state. When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, +calls Christianity "philosophy," we must note that this expression alternates with +the other "'ο καθ' 'ημας λογος", and that he uses the formula: +"Thy forefathers held +this philosophy in honour along with the other cults" +προς ταις αλλαις θρησκειχις. This excludes the assumption that Melito +in his Apology merely represented Christian +as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called "το των +θεοσεβων γενος"). He also wrote a treatise +περι κτισεως και γενεσεως Χριστου. In +it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch) he called Christ Θεου λογος προ αιωνων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote385" name="footnote385"></a><b>Footnote 385:</b><a href="#footnotetag385"> (return) </a><p> See my treatise "Tatian's Rede an die Griechen übers." 1884 (Giessener +Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre des Tatian, +1893.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote386" name="footnote386"></a><b>Footnote 386:</b><a href="#footnotetag386"> (return) </a><p>But see Orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote387" name="footnote387"></a><b>Footnote 387:</b><a href="#footnotetag387"> (return) </a><p> +He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, +but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the +practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. +Nevertheless +Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers +he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote388" name="footnote388"></a><b>Footnote 388:</b><a href="#footnotetag388"> (return) </a><p> +Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such +an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote389" name="footnote389"></a><b>Footnote 389:</b><a href="#footnotetag389"> (return) </a><p> +Orat. 12: τα της 'ημετερας παιδειας εστιν ανωτερω της κοσμικης καταληψεως. +Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist +made such bold assertions.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote390" name="footnote390"></a><b>Footnote 390:</b><a href="#footnotetag390"> (return) </a><p> +See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), +15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is +very important (see also c. 7 ff); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality +of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent +in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals +in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According +to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments: +but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed +he was planned. But, in Tatian's opinion, man lost this union by falling under +the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently +he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man's task to unite the Spirit +again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom +and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related +to the "Gnostic" theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his +destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: ανθρωπον +λεγω τον πορρω μεν ανθρωπτητος προς αυτον δε τον Θεον κεχωρηκοτα. But with +Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that +the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he +thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., +15 fin.) So it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished +from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further +it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the "Spirit" is a <i>donum +superadditum et supernaturale</i>. For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly +leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently +the realisation of man's destination depend on human freedom. That is, +however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian +himself in his latter days seems to have observed the inconsistency in which he +had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the +religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and +pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of +Christians the following holds good (c. 32): +λογου του δημοσιου και επιγειου κεχωρισμενοι +και πειθομενοι θεου παραγγελμασι και νομω πατρος αφθαρσιας 'επομενοι, παν +το εν δοξη κειμενον ανθρωπινη παραιτουμεθα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote391" name="footnote391"></a><b>Footnote 391:</b><a href="#footnotetag391"> (return) </a><p> +C. 31. init.: 'η 'ημετερα φιλοσοφια. 32 (p. 128): 'οι βουλομενοι +φιλοσοφειν παρ' +'ημιν ανθρωποι. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated 'αι παρ 'ημιν +φιλοσοφουσαι. C. 35: 'η καθ' 'ημας βαρβαρος φιλοσοφια. 40 (p. 152): +'οι κατα Μωυσεα +και 'ομοιως αυτω φιλοσοφουντες. 42: 'ο κατα βαρβαρους φιλοσοφων Τατιανος. +The +δογματα of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), +27 (p. 108), +35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity +"'η 'ημετερα +παιδεια", once also "νομοθεσια" (12; cf. 40: 'οι 'ημετεροι νομοι), +and often πολιτεια.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote392" name="footnote392"></a><b>Footnote 392:</b><a href="#footnotetag392"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us ουχ 'οπερ μη +ελαβομεν, +αλλ' 'οπερ λαβοντες 'υπο της πλανης εχειν εκολυθημεν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote393" name="footnote393"></a><b>Footnote 393:</b><a href="#footnotetag393"> (return) </a><p> +Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the +demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the +prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the +laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote394" name="footnote394"></a><b>Footnote 394:</b><a href="#footnotetag394"> (return) </a><p> Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the +prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where +only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin.. 12 (p. 54) etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote395" name="footnote395"></a><b>Footnote 395:</b><a href="#footnotetag395"> (return) </a><p> +Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, <i>e.g.</i>, c. 13 +init.: "In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, +that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and +is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again +with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On +the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped +with the knowledge of God."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote396" name="footnote396"></a><b>Footnote 396:</b><a href="#footnotetag396"> (return) </a><p> +Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are τα των βαρβαρων δογματα (c. 1): +καθ' 'ημας βαρβαρος φιλοσοφια (c. 35); 'η βαρβαρικη νομοθεσια +(c. 12); γραφαι βαρβαρικαι +(c. 29); καινοτομειν τα βαρβαρων δογματα (c. 35); 'ο κατα βαρβαρους +φιλοσοφων Τατιανος (c. 42); Μωυσης πασης βαρβαρου φιλοσοφιας αρχηγος +(c. 31); see also +c. 30, 32. In Tatian's view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote397" name="footnote397"></a><b>Footnote 397:</b><a href="#footnotetag397"> (return) </a><p>See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote398" name="footnote398"></a><b>Footnote 398:</b><a href="#footnotetag398"> (return) </a><p>C. 30 (p. 114): τουτων ουν την καταληψιν μεμυημενος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote399" name="footnote399"></a><b>Footnote 399:</b><a href="#footnotetag399"> (return) </a><p> +Tatian's own confession is very important here (c. 26): "Whilst I was reflecting +on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of +the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine +to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through +the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, +through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the +prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of +all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by God and I recognised that +those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to +which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and +tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but +rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence +of error." Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained <i>in nuce</i>; see +Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the +Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. +II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote400" name="footnote400"></a><b>Footnote 400:</b><a href="#footnotetag400"> (return) </a><p>The unknown author of the Λογος προς Ελληνας also formed the same +judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, +greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It +was published by Cureton, Spic. Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). +Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos +himself. "It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it +makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the +earth into super-Olympian regions." Through Christian knowledge the soul returns +to its Creator: δει γαρ αποκαταταθηναι οθεν απεστη.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote401" name="footnote401"></a><b>Footnote 401:</b><a href="#footnotetag401"> (return) </a><p> +Nor is Plato "'ο δοκων εν αυτοις σεμνοτερον πεφιλοσοφηκεναι" any better than +Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a +greater measure than in the others ('ο δοκων 'Ελληνων σοφωτερος γεγενησθαι), +did +not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16). Although +he knew that the full truth can only be learned from God himself through the +law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning +of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: +ει δε εικασμω, ουκ αρα αληθη εστιν τα 'υπ' αυτου ειρημενα).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote402" name="footnote402"></a><b>Footnote 402:</b><a href="#footnotetag402"> (return) </a><p> +Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: και γαρ εγω ηπιστουν τουτο +εσεσθαι, αλλα νυν κατανοησας αυτα πιστευω, 'αμα και επιτυχων 'ιεραις γραφαις των +αγιων προφητων, 'οι και προειπον δια πνευματος Θεου τι προγεγονοτα ω τροπω +γεγονεν και τα ενεστωτα τινι τροπω γινεται, και τα επερχομενα ποια ταξει απαρτισθησεται. +Αποδειξιν ουν λαβων των γινομενων και προαναπεφωνημενων ουκ +απιστω; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely +looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. +Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), +which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of +Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote403" name="footnote403"></a><b>Footnote 403:</b><a href="#footnotetag403"> (return) </a><p> +See II. 8: 'υπο δαιμονων δε εμπνευσθεντες και 'υπ' αυτων φυσιωθεντες 'α ειπον +δι' αυτων ειπον.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote404" name="footnote404"></a><b>Footnote 404:</b><a href="#footnotetag404"> (return) </a><p> +The unknown author of the work <i>de resurrectione</i>, which goes under the +name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the +thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. (Ο μεν +της αληθειας λογος εστιν ελευθεροστε και αυτεξουσιος, υπο μηδεμιαν βασανον ελεγχου +θελων πιπτειν μηδε την παρα τοις ακουουσι δι' αποδειξεως εξετασιν 'υπομενειν. Το +γαρ ευγενες αυτου και πεποιθος αυτω τω πεμψαντι πιστευεσθαι θελει). He inveighs +in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand +professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that +very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all +truth originates with revelation, since God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ +revealed this truth and is for us των ολων πιστις και αποδειξις. +But it is far from +probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical +conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries +"armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered" (c. 1, p. 214), +but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he +regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, +that is, about God and matter, held by the "so-called sages," Plato, Epicurus, +and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, +p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality +of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, "for +if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul +what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made +known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?" (c. 10, p. 246.) +This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists +to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift fur +Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin himself +the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, +has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for +fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias' "Irrisio Gentilium +Philosophorum," as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. +We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito's "Oratio ad +Antoninum Cæsarem" (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved +(written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus +(preserved in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent +on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote405" name="footnote405"></a><b>Footnote 405:</b><a href="#footnotetag405"> (return) </a><p> Massebieau (Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) has +convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use +of his works.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote406" name="footnote406"></a><b>Footnote 406:</b><a href="#footnotetag406"> (return) </a><p> Cf. the plan of the "Octavius." The champion of heathenism here opposed +to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Academy. +This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the +defence of the Stoical position. See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the +Apology of Tertullian, <i>e.g.</i>, c. 17, as well as his tractate: "de testimonio animæ +naturaliter Christianæ." We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is +throughout dependent on Cicero's book, "de natura deorum." In this treatise he +takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote407" name="footnote407"></a><b>Footnote 407:</b><a href="#footnotetag407"> (return) </a><p> +In R. Kühn's investigation ("Der Octavius des Min. Felix," Leipzig, 1882)—the +best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point +of view of the history of dogma—based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius, +more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius +and the Greek Apologists. The author's exposition requires to be supplemented +in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote408" name="footnote408"></a><b>Footnote 408:</b><a href="#footnotetag408"> (return) </a><p> +C. 20: "Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum.... ut quivis arbitretur, +aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote409" name="footnote409"></a><b>Footnote 409:</b><a href="#footnotetag409"> (return) </a><p> +See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, +who in his <i>Apologeticum</i> has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian +ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity +of the Christian societies.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote410" name="footnote410"></a><b>Footnote 410:</b><a href="#footnotetag410"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote411" name="footnote411"></a><b>Footnote 411:</b><a href="#footnotetag411"> (return) </a><p> +Tertull., de testim. I.: "Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis formata, +bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. +Te simplicem et rudem et impoliitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui +te solam habent... Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ +tuæ nemo credit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote412" name="footnote412"></a><b>Footnote 412:</b><a href="#footnotetag412"> (return) </a><p> +Tertull., Apol. 46: "Quid simile philosophus et Christianas? Græciæ discipulus +et cœli?" de præscr. 7: "Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et +ecclesiæ?" Minuc. 38.5: "Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores +et adulteros novimus... nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, +non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa +intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis +invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis ælate maturuit?"</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote413" name="footnote413"></a><b>Footnote 413:</b><a href="#footnotetag413"> (return) </a><p> Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than +Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He +also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges +the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly +the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary to give a detailed +account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the +Apology in its relation to chaps. 17-20).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote414" name="footnote414"></a><b>Footnote 414:</b><a href="#footnotetag414"> (return) </a><p> Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work "de Monarchia," +which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. +He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated +as the καθολικη δοξα which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for +της ανθρωπινης φυσεως το κατ' αρχην συζυγιαν συνεσεως και σωτηριας λαβουσης +εις επιγνωσιν αληθειας θρησκειας τε της εις τον 'ενα και παντων δεσποτην. According +to this, then, only an awakening is required.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote415" name="footnote415"></a><b>Footnote 415:</b><a href="#footnotetag415"> (return) </a><p> But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed +prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of +the work "de Monarchia" expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. +Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to +an idea that was widespread among Christian people.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote416" name="footnote416"></a><b>Footnote 416:</b><a href="#footnotetag416"> (return) </a><p>See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote417" name="footnote417"></a><b>Footnote 417:</b><a href="#footnotetag417"> (return) </a><p>See Tatian, c. 31 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote418" name="footnote418"></a><b>Footnote 418:</b><a href="#footnotetag418"> (return) </a><p> +In the New Testament the content of the Christian faith is now here designated +as dogma. In Clement (I. 11.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; +yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature τα δεδογματισμενα +'υπο Θεου. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: σπουδαζετε ουν βεβαιωθηναι +εν τοις δογμασιν του κυριου και των αποστολων, but δογματα here exclusively mean +the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in +Διδαχη XI. 3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several passages +(I. 6: IX. 7: +X. 1, 9 f.) of "dogmas of the Lord;" but by these he means partly particular +mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply +the word to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. +They are also the first who employed the ideas θεολογειν and +θεολογια. The latter +word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of "aliquem nominare deum." +In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of "to make religio-scientific +investigations." Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the +contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author "προς τους αποφηναμενους +τα περι Θεου" and not "προς τους θεολογουντας". In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) +theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate "Deity" +belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed +by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 +the expression "theologia physica, mythica" refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. +The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E. V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. +Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word "theology" are found in +Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische +Monatshefte, 1887, Parts I and 2, pp. 55-64). The title "theology," as applied to +a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously +called "theologians," and the "theological" stage was the prescientific one which +is even earlier than the "childhood" of "physicists" (so Aristotle speaks throughout). +To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still 'οι παλαιοι θεολογοι. +But +side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a +philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods +conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose +the "impossible idea of a 'theology' which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge +based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty." +The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a κοσμικη and +θεολογικη σοφια.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote419" name="footnote419"></a><b>Footnote 419:</b><a href="#footnotetag419"> (return) </a><p> +Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as λογος; (2) as +νομος, νομοθετης, and κριτης; (3) as διδασκαλος and +σοτηρ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote420" name="footnote420"></a><b>Footnote 420:</b><a href="#footnotetag420"> (return) </a><p> In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have +preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked the fact that +Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his +teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the +others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. +It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the +foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agree +with New Testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of +dogma.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote421" name="footnote421"></a><b>Footnote 421:</b><a href="#footnotetag421"> (return) </a><p> +Cicero's proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): "nemo vir magnus sine aliquo +afflatu divino unquam fuit," which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers +of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms +(see, <i>e.g.</i>, Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets +and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes +a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the +case of the prophets; for such a theory strictly applied to all would have threatened +the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote422" name="footnote422"></a><b>Footnote 422:</b><a href="#footnotetag422"> (return) </a><p> +Justin, Apol. I. 3: 'Ημετερον ουν εργον και βιου και μαθηματων την επισκεψιν +πασι παρεχειν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote423" name="footnote423"></a><b>Footnote 423:</b><a href="#footnotetag423"> (return) </a><p> See the exposition of the doctrine of God in Aristides with the conclusion +found in all the Apologists, that God requires no offerings and presents.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote424" name="footnote424"></a><b>Footnote 424:</b><a href="#footnotetag424"> (return) </a><p> +Even Tatian says in c. 19: Κοσμου μεν γαρ η κατασκευη καλη, το δε εν αυτω +πολιτευμα φαυλον.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote425" name="footnote425"></a><b>Footnote 425:</b><a href="#footnotetag425"> (return) </a><p> +Tatian 5: Ουτε αναρχος η 'υλη καθαπερ 'ο Θεος, ουδε δια το αναρχον και αυτη +ισοδυναμος τω Θεω γεννητη δε και ουχ 'υπο του αλλου γεγονυια μονον δε 'υπο +του παντων δημιουργου προβεβλημενη. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have +taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: +II. 6. Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: εξ ουκ οντων τα παντα +εποιησεν.... τι δε μεγα, ει 'ο θεος εξ 'υποκειμενης 'υλης εποιει τον κοσμον.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote426" name="footnote426"></a><b>Footnote 426:</b><a href="#footnotetag426"> (return) </a><p> Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are +most closely connected; see Tatian 27: +'η Θεου καταληψις ην εχω περι των 'ολων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote427" name="footnote427"></a><b>Footnote 427:</b><a href="#footnotetag427"> (return) </a><p> +The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian's Oration is specially instructive +here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote428" name="footnote428"></a><b>Footnote 428:</b><a href="#footnotetag428"> (return) </a><p> +According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that +the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with +the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rather is that the Logos +doctrine was already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the +person of the historical Christ, and <i>vice versâ</i> Christ's right to divine honours +was +to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote429" name="footnote429"></a><b>Footnote 429:</b><a href="#footnotetag429"> (return) </a><p> +We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and +in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of +interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer +in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit +is represented as 'ο διακονος του πεπονθοτος Θεου. +The conception in Justin, Dial. +116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. +The express designation τριας is first found in Theophilus (but see the Excerpta +ex Theodoto); see II. 15: 'αι τρεις 'ημεραι τυποι 'εισιν της τριαδος, του Θεου +και του λογου αυτου και της σοφιας αυτου; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in +Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears +with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between +Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly +striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this +interposition +is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the +reproach of αθεοτης, (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does +not +necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the +Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels +were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators +of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem, ad Corinth. LVI. 1); they might have found +a place here just for this latter reason. On the significance of the Holy Spirit in +the theology of Justin, see Zahn's Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: "If there be any +one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy +Spirit of all scientific <i>raison d'etre</i> at least on the ground of having no +distinctive +activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin." We cannot +at bottom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote430" name="footnote430"></a><b>Footnote 430:</b><a href="#footnotetag430"> (return) </a><p> To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. +The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of God by Philo, and Celsus +expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); "If according to your doctrine the Word +is really the Son of God then we agree with you;" but the Apologists are the +first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, +the Logos is intrinsically the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God, not +because he is the begotten of God in the flesh (early Christian), but because the +spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane reproduction of God (see +Justin, Apol. II. 6: +'ο 'υιος του πατρος και Θεου, 'ο μονος λεγομενος κυριως 'υιος)—a +momentous expression.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote431" name="footnote431"></a><b>Footnote 431:</b><a href="#footnotetag431"> (return) </a><p>Athenag., 10; Tatian, Orat. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote432" name="footnote432"></a><b>Footnote 432:</b><a href="#footnotetag432"> (return) </a><p> The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be +compared with the following: Θεος ην εν αρχη, την δε αρχην λογου δυναμιν +παρειληφαμεν. 'Ο γαρ δεσποτης των 'ολων, αυτος 'υπαρχων του παντος 'η 'υποστασις, +κατα μεν την μηδεπω γεγενημενην ποιησιν μονος ην, καθο δε πασα δυναμις, 'ορατων +τε και αορατων αυτος 'υποστασις ην, συν αυτω τα παντα συν αυτω δια λογικης +δυναμεως αυτος και 'ο λογος, 'ος ην αυτο, 'υπεστησε. Θεληματι δε της απλοτητος +αυτου προπηδα λογος, 'ο δε λογος, ου κατα κενου χωρησας, εργον πρωτοτοκον του +πατρος γινεται. Τουτον ισμεν του κοσμου την αρχην. Γεγονε δε κατα μερισμον, +ου κατα αποκοπην το γαρ αποτμηθεν του πρωτου κεχωρισται, το δε μεριοθεν +οικονομας την 'αιρεσιν προσλαβον ουκ ενδεα τον 'οθεν ειληπται πεποιηκεν. Ωσπερ +γαρ αρο μιας δαδος αναπτεται μεν πυρα πολλα, της δε πρωτης δαδος δια την +εξαψιν των πολλων δαδων ουκ ελαττουται το φως, 'ουτω και 'ο λογος προελθων εκ +της του πατρος δυναμεως ουκ αλογον πεποιηκε τον γεγεννηκοτα. In the identification +of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to +which the world is due the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is +most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote433" name="footnote433"></a><b>Footnote 433:</b><a href="#footnotetag433"> (return) </a><p> +The word "beget" (γενναν) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because +the name "Son" was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt +the words εξερευγεσθαι, προβαλλεσθαι, προερχεσθαι, προπηδαν +and the like express +the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other +hand, however, γενναν appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation +of the essence of the Logos to the essence of God is most clearly shown by the +name "Son."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote434" name="footnote434"></a><b>Footnote 434:</b><a href="#footnotetag434"> (return) </a><p> None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, l.c., +p. 233, correctly remarks: "Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto +unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the +thought of the world within the mind of God, yet he is also to be something +real which only requires to enter into a new relation to God to become an active +force. Then again this Word is not to be the thought that God thinks, but the +thought that thinks in God. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in +God's thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something +else in God; occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active +exercise and without which he would not be rational." Considering this evident +uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions +of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually +done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, +that Tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, +and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable +to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done +in the book already referred to, p. 232 f. Hardly any real difference can have +existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On +the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance +of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine +relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenæus took up here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote435" name="footnote435"></a><b>Footnote 435:</b><a href="#footnotetag435"> (return) </a><p> +This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in +Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded +the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote436" name="footnote436"></a><b>Footnote 436:</b><a href="#footnotetag436"> (return) </a><p> +Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like +the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply +and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians +did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote437" name="footnote437"></a><b>Footnote 437:</b><a href="#footnotetag437"> (return) </a><p> +All the Apologists tacitly assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has +the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between +Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): +"Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique +et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna +reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et +ministro." But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon +that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, +as it were, between God and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, +in so far as he is conceived as the production of God; and again seems to be +merged in God, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual +force of God. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the +Greek Apologists are silent about it.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote438" name="footnote438"></a><b>Footnote 438:</b><a href="#footnotetag438"> (return) </a><p> +The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality +of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial. 5; Theoph. II. 27.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote439" name="footnote439"></a><b>Footnote 439:</b><a href="#footnotetag439"> (return) </a><p> The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and +therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to +the Hexaëmeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain +that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his +2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. +The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. +I.-III.; see, <i>e.g.</i>, +Marcus in Iren. I. 18.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote440" name="footnote440"></a><b>Footnote 440:</b><a href="#footnotetag440"> (return) </a><p> +See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: Ει γαρ 'ο Θεος αθανατον τον ανθρωπον απ' +αρχης πεποιηκει, Θεον αυτον πεποιηκει; παλιν ει θνητον αυτον πεποιηκει εδοκει αν 'ο +Θεος αιτιος ειναι του θανατου αυτου. Ουτε ουν αθανατον αυτον εποιησεν ουτε μην +θνητον, αλλα δεκτικον αμφοτερων, 'ινα, ει 'ρεψη επι τα της αθανασιας τηρησας την +εντολην του Θεου, μισθον κομισηται παρ' αυτου την αθανασιαν και γενηται Θεος, ει δ' +αυ τραπη επι τα του θανατου πραγματα παρακουσας του Θεου, αυτος εαυτω αιτιος +η του θανατου.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote441" name="footnote441"></a><b>Footnote 441:</b><a href="#footnotetag441"> (return) </a><p> +See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote442" name="footnote442"></a><b>Footnote 442:</b><a href="#footnotetag442"> (return) </a><p>See Tatian, Orat. II. and many other passages.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote443" name="footnote443"></a><b>Footnote 443:</b><a href="#footnotetag443"> (return) </a><p> +Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the +strongest way as the specific article of Christian anticipation, and prove the possibility +of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground +of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence +of God and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. +Nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return +of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as +non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote444" name="footnote444"></a><b>Footnote 444:</b><a href="#footnotetag444"> (return) </a><p> No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die +Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin +speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With +Tatian and Theophilus it is different.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote445" name="footnote445"></a><b>Footnote 445:</b><a href="#footnotetag445"> (return) </a><p> +The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological +condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l.c., +p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt's "Das Christenthum +Justin's des Märtyrers" pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stählin, "Justin der +Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler" 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a different +opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, +p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following +propositions: +(1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This +doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The +desires of the flesh resulting from the constitution of man only become evil when +they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal <i>liberum arbitrium</i> +explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the +desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality +of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to +call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued +with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the +perpetuation +of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of God, as well as +their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from +a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate +nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not +do so, the Apologists were obliged in practice to be dualists.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote446" name="footnote446"></a><b>Footnote 446:</b><a href="#footnotetag446"> (return) </a><p> Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II. 26) represents it +as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism +is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the +gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and +partly lies.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote447" name="footnote447"></a><b>Footnote 447:</b><a href="#footnotetag447"> (return) </a><p> The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy +or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot +be surpassed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is +completely identical. The prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to +attest the <i>one</i> truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to +Christianity +by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin's and Tatian's confessions. Perhaps +Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote448" name="footnote448"></a><b>Footnote 448:</b><a href="#footnotetag448"> (return) </a><p> +The <i>Oratio</i> of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he +has nowhere spoken <i>ex professo</i> of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but +in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit "the servant of God who has suffered," and +in c. 21 init. he says: "we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, +when we proclaim that God has appeared in human form." Similar expressions +are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides' Apology is there any +mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks +of the revelation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote449" name="footnote449"></a><b>Footnote 449:</b><a href="#footnotetag449"> (return) </a><p> +We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular +occurrence should have been prophesied. According to the ideas of the +Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the +value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no +importance. The fact that Jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. I. +32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences +attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote450" name="footnote450"></a><b>Footnote 450:</b><a href="#footnotetag450"> (return) </a><p> +In Justin's polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking +way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise προς Μαρκιωνα, quoted by +Irenæus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence "unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma +in semetipsum recapitulans." So the theologoumenon of the <i>recapitulatio per +Christum</i> already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we +compare Tertullian's <i>Apologeticum</i> with his Antignostic writings we easily see how +impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and +knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin's +apologetic writings.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote451" name="footnote451"></a><b>Footnote 451:</b><a href="#footnotetag451"> (return) </a><p> Christians do not place a man alongside of God, for Christ is God, though +indeed a second God. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine +nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised—or at least this is only the case +in so far as it is a second Godhead—but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit +Christi, p. 39 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote452" name="footnote452"></a><b>Footnote 452:</b><a href="#footnotetag452"> (return) </a><p> +We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the +incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of +the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind's sinful history, and to regenerate +humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenæus and Melito.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote453" name="footnote453"></a><b>Footnote 453:</b><a href="#footnotetag453"> (return) </a><p> Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be +fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45). For that reason the judgment is put +off by God (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of +Jesus; his conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, +resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote454" name="footnote454"></a><b>Footnote 454:</b><a href="#footnotetag454"> (return) </a><p> "To Justin faith is only an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of +Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. Faith does not justify, but is +merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, +change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free +decision to serve God has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such +significance that one can say, 'Abraham was justified by faith.' In reality, however, +this took place through μετανοια." The idea of the new birth is exhausted +in the thought: Θεος καλει εις μετανοιαν, that of the forgiveness of sins in +the idea: +"God is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man +has changed his mind." Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has +brought about all the conditions which make for repentance.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote455" name="footnote455"></a><b>Footnote 455:</b><a href="#footnotetag455"> (return) </a><p> This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main +there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote456" name="footnote456"></a><b>Footnote 456:</b><a href="#footnotetag456"> (return) </a><p> +If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, +we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and +of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See +Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. II, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, +27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 ff. (ed. +Otto) does not contradict this.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote457" name="footnote457"></a><b>Footnote 457:</b><a href="#footnotetag457"> (return) </a><p> +Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its +genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of +its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, +p. 26 f. The fragment is worded as follows: +Πλασας 'ο Θεος κατ' αρχας τον ανθρωπον +της γνωμης αυτου τα της φυσεως απηωρησεν εντολη μια ποιησαμενος την +διαπειραν. Φυλαξαντα μεν γαρ ταυτην της αθαντου ληξεως πεποιηκεν εσεσθαι, +παραβαντα δε της εναντιας. Ουτω γεγονως 'ο ανθρωπος και προς την παραβασιν ευθυς +ελθων την φθοραν φυσικως εισεδεξατο. Φυσει δε της φθορας προσγενομενης ανανκαιον +ην 'οτι σωσαι βουλομενος ην την φθοροποιον ουσιαν αφανισας. Τουτο δε ουκ ην 'ετερος +γενεσθαι, ει μηπερ 'η κατα φυσιν ζωη προσεπλακη τω την φθοραν δεξαμενω, αφανιζουσα +μεν την φθοραν, αθανατον δε του λοιπου το δεξαμενον διατηρουσα. Δια τουτο +τον λογον εδεησεν εν σωματι γενεσθαι, 'ινα (του θανατου) της κατα φυσιν 'ημας φθορας +ελευθερωση. Ει γαρ, 'ως φατε, νευματι μονον τον θανατον 'ημων απεκωλυσεν, ου προσηι +μεν δια την βουλησιν 'ο θανατος, ουδεν δε ηττον φθαρτοι παλιν ημεν φυικην εν +'εαυτοις την φθοραν περιφεροντες.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote458" name="footnote458"></a><b>Footnote 458:</b><a href="#footnotetag458"> (return) </a><p> Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good +reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stählin, Justin der Martyrer, +1880, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt's book contains much that is +worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote459" name="footnote459"></a><b>Footnote 459:</b><a href="#footnotetag459"> (return) </a><p> Loofs continues: "The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept +'Son' to the preëxistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological +problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of +the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preëxistence +and depreciated the importance of Jesus' life as compared with the incarnation. +They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine +it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a 'higher' Christology +than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of +Christ. It is not God who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated +God, who <i>as God</i> is subordinate to the supreme Deity."</p></blockquote> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page230" id="page230"></a>[pg 230]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="CHAP_V" id="CHAP_V"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICO-THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION +AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN +OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE +NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY +OF THE APOLOGISTS: +MELITO, IRENÆUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.<a id="footnotetag460" name="footnotetag460"></a><a href="#footnote460"><sup>460</sup></a></h3> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_V_I" id="SEC_V_I"></a>1. <i>The theological position of Irenæus and the later +contemporary Church teachers</i>.</h3> + +<p>Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church had compelled orthodox +Christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this +binding on Christians as an apostolical law. Everything that +laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the +faith, <i>i.e.</i>, the baptismal confession and the New Testament canon +of Scripture (see above, chap. 2, under A and B). However, mere +"prescriptions" could no longer suffice here. But the baptismal +confession was no "doctrine;" if it was to be transformed into +such it required an interpretation. We have shown above that +the <i>interpreted</i> baptismal confession was instituted as the guide +for the faith. This interpretation took its <i>matter</i> from the sacred +books of <i>both</i> Testaments. It owed its guiding lines, however, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page231" id="page231"></a>[pg 231]</span> +on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the +Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain +and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and +hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the +enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain +interests, which had found expression in the speculations of +the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree +among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence +the ecclesiastical teachers.<a id="footnotetag461" name="footnotetag461"></a><a href="#footnote461"><sup>461</sup></a> The theological labours, thus initiated, +accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. +In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito,<a id="footnotetag462" name="footnotetag462"></a><a href="#footnote462"><sup>462</sup></a> Rhodon,<a id="footnotetag463" name="footnotetag463"></a><a href="#footnote463"><sup>463</sup></a> +Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were in every case convinced +that all their expositions contained the universal Church faith +itself and nothing else. Though the faith is identical with the +baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from +the New Testament is no less certain than the shortest formula.<a id="footnotetag464" name="footnotetag464"></a><a href="#footnote464"><sup>464</sup></a> +The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page232" id="page232"></a>[pg 232]</span> +unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared +as "doctrines" and offered themselves for incorporation with +the "faith."<a id="footnotetag465" name="footnotetag465"></a><a href="#footnote465"><sup>465</sup></a> The limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely +extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and +polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the +shortest formula. The oscillation between this brief formula, +the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, +which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of +the old Catholic Fathers we have mentioned. In the second +place, these fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof +in their arguments with their christian opponents, as they did +while contending with the heathen;<a id="footnotetag466" name="footnotetag466"></a><a href="#footnote466"><sup>466</sup></a> and, being themselves +children of their time, they required this proof for their own +assurance and that of their fellow-believers. The epoch in which +men appealed to charisms, and "knowledge" counted as much +as prophecy and vision, because it was still of them same nature, +was in the main a thing of the past.<a id="footnotetag467" name="footnotetag467"></a><a href="#footnote467"><sup>467</sup></a> Tradition and reason +had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. But this +change had neither come to be clearly recognized,<a id="footnotetag468" name="footnotetag468"></a><a href="#footnote468"><sup>468</sup></a> nor was +the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition +felt to be a problem. We can indeed trace the consciousness +of the danger in attempting to introduce new <i>termini</i> and regulations +not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.<a id="footnotetag469" name="footnotetag469"></a><a href="#footnote469"><sup>469</sup></a> The bishops +themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page233" id="page233"></a>[pg 233]</span> +warn people against the Gnostics,<a id="footnotetag470" name="footnotetag470"></a><a href="#footnote470"><sup>470</sup></a> and after the deluge of +heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust +on every philosophic-theological formula.<a id="footnotetag471" name="footnotetag471"></a><a href="#footnote471"><sup>471</sup></a> Such propositions +of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, +placed by Irenæus and Tertullian on the same level as +the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by +them as something of a different nature. Irenæus uttered most +urgent warnings against subtle speculations;<a id="footnotetag472" name="footnotetag472"></a><a href="#footnote472"><sup>472</sup></a> but yet, in the +naivest way, associated with the faithfully preserved traditional +doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise +regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did +not differ from those of the Apologists or Gnostics.<a id="footnotetag473" name="footnotetag473"></a><a href="#footnote473"><sup>473</sup></a> The +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page234" id="page234"></a>[pg 234]</span> +Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were the basis on +which Irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. +Some of these he stated as they had been conceived +by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted +to the new necessities. The qualitative distinction between the +<i>fides credenda</i> and theology was noticed neither by Irenæus +nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenæus I. 10. 3 +this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theological +knowledge are still completely intermixed. Whilst stating +and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the +New Testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent +deduction, the Fathers think they are setting forth the +faith itself and nothing else. Anything more than this is only +curiosity not unattended with danger to Christians. Theology +is interpreted faith.<a id="footnotetag474" name="footnotetag474"></a><a href="#footnote474"><sup>474</sup></a></p> + +<p>Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose +at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily +devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious +aim. In this form we find them with special plainness in +Tertullian.<a id="footnotetag475" name="footnotetag475"></a><a href="#footnote475"><sup>475</sup></a> This writer was still completely incapable of inwardly +connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed +by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines +of the <i>regula fidei</i>, which, after the example of Irenæus, he +constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposition +to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page235" id="page235"></a>[pg 235]</span> +the <i>intrinsic</i> necessity of these dogmas, he seldom gets beyond +rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a +systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than +a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as +a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts +and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we understand +his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid +of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, +not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no +comparison with the older theology of Valentinus or the later +system of Origen.<a id="footnotetag476" name="footnotetag476"></a><a href="#footnote476"><sup>476</sup></a> To Tertullian everything lies side by side; +problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. +The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes +seems to be in Justin's case, a great apparatus of proof +for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, +in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly +in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles +and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.<a id="footnotetag477" name="footnotetag477"></a><a href="#footnote477"><sup>477</sup></a> In spite +of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of +dogma; for he developed and created, in a disconnected form +and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the +most important dogmatic formulæ, which Cyprian, Novatian, +Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambrosius +and Leo I., introduced into the general dogmatic system +of the Catholic Church. He founded the terminology both of +the trinitarian and of the Christological dogma; and in addition +to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts +(<i>satisfacere</i>, <i>meritum</i>, <i>sacramentum</i>, <i>vitium originis</i> etc., +etc.). +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page236" id="page236"></a>[pg 236]</span> +Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type +of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the +direction of <i>auctoritas et ratio</i>, and its corresponding tendency +to assume a legal character (<i>lex</i>, formal and material), peculiarities +which were to become more and more clearly marked as +time went on.<a id="footnotetag478" name="footnotetag478"></a><a href="#footnote478"><sup>478</sup></a> But, great as is his importance in this respect, +it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of +Christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this +was already out of date at the time when he lived. What influenced +the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his +masterly power of framing formulæ.</p> + +<p>It is different with Irenæus. The Christianity of this man +proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of +its content. If Tertullian supplied the future Catholic dogmatic +with the most important part of its formulæ, Irenæus clearly +sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient +notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.<a id="footnotetag479" name="footnotetag479"></a><a href="#footnote479"><sup>479</sup></a> +Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, +the great work of Irenæus is far superior to the theological +writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily +undertaken by Irenæus, of giving a relatively complete +exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity on the +basis of the New Testament, in opposition to heresy. Tertullian +nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, +in the case of the Gallic bishop too, only made its appearance +as the result of polemical motives. But Irenæus to a certain +degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the +statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. This +result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental +idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he +was directed by a confident view of Christianity as a religion, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page237" id="page237"></a>[pg 237]</span> +that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea, +in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenæus by +his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator +of the world and the supreme God are one and the same.<a id="footnotetag480" name="footnotetag480"></a><a href="#footnote480"><sup>480</sup></a> +The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is +shared by Irenæus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is +the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this +redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The +working out of these two ideas is the most important feature +in Irenæus' book. As yet, indeed, he by no means really succeeded +in completely adapting to these two fundamental thoughts +all the materials to be taken from Holy Scripture and found +in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness +within the scheme of the Apologists. His archaic eschatological +disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great +deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulæ and thoughts, +he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely +contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute +causality of God the Creator; but the repetition of the same +main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the +attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the +success of his work.<a id="footnotetag481" name="footnotetag481"></a><a href="#footnote481"><sup>481</sup></a> God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page238" id="page238"></a>[pg 238]</span> +are really the middle points of his theological system, and in +this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several +historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at +from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an +identical nature with the Gnostic.<a id="footnotetag482" name="footnotetag482"></a><a href="#footnote482"><sup>482</sup></a> But, while he conceives +Christianity as an explanation of the world and as redemption, +his Christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the Gnostics. +Since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism +they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination of +opposing elements,<a id="footnotetag483" name="footnotetag483"></a><a href="#footnote483"><sup>483</sup></a> and therefore recognised in the redemption +by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenæus, +on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality +of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty +estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption +by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated—the +"recapitulatio" (ανακεφαλαιωσις).<a id="footnotetag484" name="footnotetag484"></a><a href="#footnote484"><sup>484</sup></a> This speculative +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page239" id="page239"></a>[pg 239]</span> +thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in +contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenæus into touch with +certain Pauline trains of thought,<a id="footnotetag485" name="footnotetag485"></a><a href="#footnote485"><sup>485</sup></a> and enabled him to adhere +to the theology of the Apologists. At the same time it opened +up a view of the person of Christ, which supplemented the +great defect of that theology,<a id="footnotetag486" name="footnotetag486"></a><a href="#footnote486"><sup>486</sup></a> surpassed the Christology of the +Gnostics,<a id="footnotetag487" name="footnotetag487"></a><a href="#footnote487"><sup>487</sup></a> and made it possible to utilise the Christological +statements contained in certain books of the New Testament.<a id="footnotetag488" name="footnotetag488"></a><a href="#footnote488"><sup>488</sup></a></p> + +<p>So far as we know at least, Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical +theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before +that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person +of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.<a id="footnotetag489" name="footnotetag489"></a><a href="#footnote489"><sup>489</sup></a> That +was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. +Here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of Gnosticism, +because, as a disciple of the "elders", he adhered to the early-Christian +eschatology, and because, as a follower of the Apologists, +he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, +the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page240" id="page240"></a>[pg 240]</span> +to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship +with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God, +and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. +Nevertheless to Irenæus the pith of the matter is already found +in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, <i>i.e.</i>, that the +highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of +human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this +deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of God +(visio dei). This conception suggested to him the question as +to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the +same. The question "cur deus—homo", which was by no +means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far +as in these "homo" only meant <i>appearance</i> among men, and +the "why" was answered by referring to prophecy and the +necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenæus made the central +point. The reasons why the answer he gave was so highly +satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) It proved that the +Christian blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) It was +similar in point of form to the so-called Gnostic conception of +Christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised +extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) It harmonised +with the eschatological tendency of Christendom, and at +the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological +expectations that were fading away. (4) It was in keeping with +the mystic and Neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded +it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) For the vanishing trust +in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid +of reason it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation +of human nature which would even enable it to +appropriate that which is above reason. (6) Lastly, it provided +the traditional historical utterances respecting Christ, as well as +the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation +and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history +of salvation unfolding itself by degrees οικονομια Θεου. According +to this conception the central point of history was no longer +the Logos as such, but Christ as the <i>incarnate God</i>, while at +the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really +religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page241" id="page241"></a>[pg 241]</span> +theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some +extent only in appearance. A more exact representation of +salvation through Christ has, however, been given by Irenæus as +follows: Incorruptibility is a <i>habitus</i> which is the opposite of +our present one and indeed of man's natural condition. For +immortality is at once God's manner of existence and his attribute; +as a created being man is only "capable of incorruption +and immortality" ("<i>capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis</i>");<a id="footnotetag490" name="footnotetag490"></a><a href="#footnote490"><sup>490</sup></a> +thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the +same, and yet is empirically "subjected to the power of death" +("sub condicione mortis"). Now the sole way in which immortality +as a physical condition can be obtained is by its +possessor uniting himself <i>realiter</i> with human nature, in order +to deify it "by adoption" ("<i>per adoptionem</i>"), such is the +technical term of Irenæus. The deity must become what we +are in order that we may become what he is. Accordingly, if +Christ is to be the Redeemer, he must himself be God, and all +the stress must fall upon his birth as man. "By his birth as +man the eternal Word of God guarantees the inheritance of +life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death."<a id="footnotetag491" name="footnotetag491"></a><a href="#footnote491"><sup>491</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page242" id="page242"></a>[pg 242]</span> +But this work of Christ can be conceived as <i>recapitulatio</i> because +God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator; +and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which +existed from the beginning in God's plan, but could not be +immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page243" id="page243"></a>[pg 243]</span> +is perhaps Irenæus' highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical +point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant +fashion and with the simplest means, <i>i.e.</i>, without the +apparatus of the Gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and +essentially Biblical ideas. Moreover, a few decades later, he +and Melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were +already credited with this merit. For the author of the so-called +"Little Labyrinth" (Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 5) can indeed boast +with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, +etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues: +Τα Ειρηναιου τε και Μελιτωνος και των λοιπων τις αγνοει βιβλια, +θεον και ανθρωπον καταγγελλοντα τον Χριστον ("Who is ignorant of +the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim +Christ to be God and man"). The progress in theological views +is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. The +Apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of +God upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which +necessarily leads to immortality;<a id="footnotetag492" name="footnotetag492"></a><a href="#footnote492"><sup>492</sup></a> but Irenæus is the first to whom +Jesus Christ, God and man, is the centre of history and faith.<a id="footnotetag493" name="footnotetag493"></a><a href="#footnote493"><sup>493</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page244" id="page244"></a>[pg 244]</span> +Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching +a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the οικονομια +Θεου culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but +here he always managed to keep his language essentially within +the limits of the Biblical. The various acting æons of the +Gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of +the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have +absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intelligible +simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it +did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. +Revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and +dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking +at history, the knowledge of God's ways of salvation that lead +historically to an appointed goal.<a id="footnotetag494" name="footnotetag494"></a><a href="#footnote494"><sup>494</sup></a></p> + +<p>But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was +by no means completely worked out by Irenæus himself, since +the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical +development, and since the New Testament also pointed in other +directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even +in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any +one teacher. The two conceptions opposed to it, that of the +early Christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still +in vogue. The two latter were closely connected in the third +century, especially in the West, whilst the mystic and realistic +view was almost completely lacking there. In this respect +Tertullian adopted but little from Irenæus. Hippolytus also +lagged behind him. Teachers like Commodian, Arnobius, and +Lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no Gnostic +movement at all, and as if no Antignostic Church theology +existed. The immediate result of the work carried on by Irenæus +and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in +the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual +doctrines, which gradually became established. The most +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page245" id="page245"></a>[pg 245]</span> +important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital +point, the introduction of the philosophical Christology into the +Church's rule of faith, see Chapter 7.</p> + +<p>The manner in which Irenæus undertook his great task of +expounding and defending orthodox Christianity in opposition +to the Gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. +The oldest Christian motives and hopes; the letter of both +Testaments, including even Pauline thoughts; moralistic and +philosophical elements, the result of the Apologists' labours; +and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his +treatment. He glides over from the one to the other; limits +the one by the other; plays off Scripture against reason, tradition +against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fantastic +speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes +to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and dominating +everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of +divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the +God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. +It was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating +the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the +conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the +consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between +the Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing +at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenæus +with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method +according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process +is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being +merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very +process established, as far as "stands in the Holy Scripture," +and—let us add—as far as reason requires. But Irenæus was +already obliged to decline answering the question as to how +far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most Christians, though +nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, "why +more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the +character of each covenant, why God shut up every man unto +unbelief, why the Word became flesh and suffered, why the +advent of the Son of God only took place in the last times etc." +(I. 10. 3). The relation of faith and theological Gnosis was +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page246" id="page246"></a>[pg 246]</span> +fixed by Irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation +of the former.<a id="footnotetag495" name="footnotetag495"></a><a href="#footnote495"><sup>495</sup></a> At the same time, however, he did +not clearly show how the collection of historical statements found +in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable +knowledge of Christianity. Here the speculative theories +are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions +of tradition. Will these obscurities remain when once +the Church is forced to compete in its theological system with +the whole philosophical science of the Greeks, or may it be +expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, +a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing +between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative +sense the whole complex of tradition? Irenæus' process +has at least this one advantage over the other method: according +to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing +it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to +alter its nature. It is incorporated in the theology of facts +which the faith here appears to be.<a id="footnotetag496" name="footnotetag496"></a><a href="#footnote496"><sup>496</sup></a> The latter, however, imperceptibly +becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; +and though Irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything +again to the "simple faith" (φιλη πιστις), and to believing simplicity, +that is, to the belief in the Creator and the Son of God +who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the +development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of +a theological system. The pronounced hellenising of the Gospel, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page247" id="page247"></a>[pg 247]</span> +brought about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenæus +and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion +of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly +as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. But +the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of +"Gnostic" formulæ. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted +the adversary's way of looking at things, and necessarily did +so, because as they became ever further and further removed +from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always +more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic +Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for +Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising +of Christianity.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_V_II" id="SEC_V_II"></a>2. <i>The Doctrines of the Church.</i></h3> + +<p>In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation +of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic +Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine +to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding +times.</p> + +<p>Against the Gnostic theses<a id="footnotetag497" name="footnotetag497"></a><a href="#footnote497"><sup>497</sup></a> Irenæus and his successors, apart +from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic +considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion +the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace +everything, that is, he is bounded by the <i>kenoma</i> or by the +sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, +omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.<a id="footnotetag498" name="footnotetag498"></a><a href="#footnote498"><sup>498</sup></a> +(2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page248" id="page248"></a>[pg 248]</span> +divine <i>pleroma</i> represents the Deity as a composite, <i>i.e.</i>,<a id="footnotetag499" name="footnotetag499"></a><a href="#footnote499"><sup>499</sup></a> finite +being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities +is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon +as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and +qualities of man in a similar way.<a id="footnotetag500" name="footnotetag500"></a><a href="#footnote500"><sup>500</sup></a> (3) The attempt to make out +conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and +audacious.<a id="footnotetag501" name="footnotetag501"></a><a href="#footnote501"><sup>501</sup></a> (4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of +Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, <i>i.e.</i>, into the Godhead.<a id="footnotetag502" name="footnotetag502"></a><a href="#footnote502"><sup>502</sup></a> +With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic +cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against +the system is that the world and mankind would have been +incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to +ignorance and sin.<a id="footnotetag503" name="footnotetag503"></a><a href="#footnote503"><sup>503</sup></a> Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy +arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page249" id="page249"></a>[pg 249]</span> +and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside +of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch +as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme Being, +and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer +look on him as a God.<a id="footnotetag504" name="footnotetag504"></a><a href="#footnote504"><sup>504</sup></a> The Fathers everywhere argue on +behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme +God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way +and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All +their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the +world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be +no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; +for it proves that the apologetico-philosophical theology +was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) +supreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; +the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The +intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming +him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental +and what was accidental in their religious teaching. +At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not +understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled +and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative +distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. +They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by +the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly +their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and +Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page250" id="page250"></a>[pg 250]</span> +kind.<a id="footnotetag505" name="footnotetag505"></a><a href="#footnote505"><sup>505</sup></a> As a rule they do not here carry on their +controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views +of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, +there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, +at least in the case of Tertullian; and the contest is shifted into +the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, +for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression +on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though +in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than +Tertullian.<a id="footnotetag506" name="footnotetag506"></a><a href="#footnote506"><sup>506</sup></a> Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed +what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished +from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments +advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their +own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent +on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and +tradition.</p> + +<p>Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture +theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this +designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here +understand "evangelical" in the vulgar sense, the term may +be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as +"Catholic." But if "evangelical" signifies "early-Christian," +then it must be said that Scripture theology was not the primary +means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, +as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as <i>inspired</i> +documents and were to be interpreted according to the <i>regula</i>, +their content was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both +Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been +Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed +them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against +the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by +Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page251" id="page251"></a>[pg 251]</span> +of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer +into any others one might choose;<a id="footnotetag507" name="footnotetag507"></a><a href="#footnote507"><sup>507</sup></a> but they just as decidedly protested +against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical +method of interpretation,<a id="footnotetag508" name="footnotetag508"></a><a href="#footnote508"><sup>508</sup></a> and therefore were not able to set up a +canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from +that of the Gnostics.<a id="footnotetag509" name="footnotetag509"></a><a href="#footnote509"><sup>509</sup></a> The Scripture theology of the old Catholic +Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture +is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific +one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, +the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In +a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then +the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a wholesome +reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; +and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain +imperceptible recognition in opposition to the "spirit" arbitrarily +read into it, and at length banish this "spirit" completely. +Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures +as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation +theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves;<a id="footnotetag510" name="footnotetag510"></a><a href="#footnote510"><sup>510</sup></a> +he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency +of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;<a id="footnotetag511" name="footnotetag511"></a><a href="#footnote511"><sup>511</sup></a> he rejects +all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the +sacred books;<a id="footnotetag512" name="footnotetag512"></a><a href="#footnote512"><sup>512</sup></a> he lays down the maxim that the obscure passages +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page252" id="page252"></a>[pg 252]</span> +are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versa;<a id="footnotetag513" name="footnotetag513"></a><a href="#footnote513"><sup>513</sup></a> +but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite +unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according +to the rule of faith<a id="footnotetag514" name="footnotetag514"></a><a href="#footnote514"><sup>514</sup></a> and, in the case of all objectionable +passages, to seek the type.<a id="footnotetag515" name="footnotetag515"></a><a href="#footnote515"><sup>515</sup></a> Not only did Irenæus explain +the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional +usage;<a id="footnotetag516" name="footnotetag516"></a><a href="#footnote516"><sup>516</sup></a> but according to the principle: "with God there is +nothing without purpose or due signification" ("nihil vacuum +neque sine signo apud deum") (IV. 21. 3), he was also the +first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the +New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the +Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic +writings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the +fact of Jesus handing round food to those <i>lying</i> at table as +signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;<a id="footnotetag517" name="footnotetag517"></a><a href="#footnote517"><sup>517</sup></a> +and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets +the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and +Son.<a id="footnotetag518" name="footnotetag518"></a><a href="#footnote518"><sup>518</sup></a> To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all +numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures +are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and +hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give +to them. "Gnosticism" is therefore here adopted by the +ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this "Gnosticism" +is nothing else than the learned construction of religion +with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Churchmen +were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to +put the same questions as the "Gnostics," they were obliged +to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page253" id="page253"></a>[pg 253]</span> +order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam +down to the present time—not merely down to Christ—against +the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this +continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the +rest, the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus +were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that +there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed +as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not +only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as +compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains +why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they +believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find +neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation +of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which +they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, +which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate +and consequently did not answer.<a id="footnotetag519" name="footnotetag519"></a><a href="#footnote519"><sup>519</sup></a></p> + +<p><i>The doctrine of God</i> was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for +the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the +methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results +remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy +a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge—for +God is not abyss and silence—and the attempt to fathom +the depths of the Godhead.<a id="footnotetag520" name="footnotetag520"></a><a href="#footnote520"><sup>520</sup></a> Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, +strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of +God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate +the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary +condition of knowledge and plainly acknowledged it as +the principle of knowledge.<a id="footnotetag521" name="footnotetag521"></a><a href="#footnote521"><sup>521</sup></a> God can be known from +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page254" id="page254"></a>[pg 254]</span> +revelation,<a id="footnotetag522" name="footnotetag522"></a><a href="#footnote522"><sup>522</sup></a> because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by +the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught +that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, +can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge +always continues, so that all men are without excuse.<a id="footnotetag523" name="footnotetag523"></a><a href="#footnote523"><sup>523</sup></a> In this +case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the +Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be +already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly +did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former +assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting +on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, +with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that +is a phantom;<a id="footnotetag524" name="footnotetag524"></a><a href="#footnote524"><sup>524</sup></a> and every sublime religious state of mind which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page255" id="page255"></a>[pg 255]</span> +does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the +Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade +God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination +of the devil that has produced the <i>blasphemia creatoris</i>.<a id="footnotetag525" name="footnotetag525"></a><a href="#footnote525"><sup>525</sup></a> Like +the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the +doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of +the main articles of Christian faith;<a id="footnotetag526" name="footnotetag526"></a><a href="#footnote526"><sup>526</sup></a> the belief in his oneness +as well as his absoluteness is the main point.<a id="footnotetag527" name="footnotetag527"></a><a href="#footnote527"><sup>527</sup></a> God is all light, +all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;<a id="footnotetag528" name="footnotetag528"></a><a href="#footnote528"><sup>528</sup></a> everything anthropopathic +and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible +with his nature.<a id="footnotetag529" name="footnotetag529"></a><a href="#footnote529"><sup>529</sup></a> The early-Catholic doctrine of +God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so +far as God's attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly +discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page256" id="page256"></a>[pg 256]</span> +they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each +other.<a id="footnotetag530" name="footnotetag530"></a><a href="#footnote530"><sup>530</sup></a></p> + +<p>In the case of the <i>Logos doctrine</i> also, Tertullian and Hippolytus +simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, +whilst Irenæus struck out a path of his own. In the <i>Apologeticum</i> +(c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down +by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his +predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the +Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.<a id="footnotetag531" name="footnotetag531"></a><a href="#footnote531"><sup>531</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page257" id="page257"></a>[pg 257]</span> +He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the +Monarchian Praxeas.<a id="footnotetag532" name="footnotetag532"></a><a href="#footnote532"><sup>532</sup></a> Here he created the formulæ of succeeding +orthodoxy by introducing the ideas "substance" and "person" +and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism +and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions +of the relations between the persons which could be fully +adopted in the Nicene creed.<a id="footnotetag533" name="footnotetag533"></a><a href="#footnote533"><sup>533</sup></a> Here also the philosophical and +cosmological interest prevails; the history of salvation appears +only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is +distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption +appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation +and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity +of the Godhead is shown in the <i>una substantia</i> and the <i>una +dominatio</i> was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. +According to him the unfolding of this one substance +into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the +divine sovereignty by emanated <i>persons</i> cannot endanger the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page258" id="page258"></a>[pg 258]</span> +unity; the "arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves +the trinity from itself" ("dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex +semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat") does not abolish the unity, and, +moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, +so that God will be all in all.<a id="footnotetag534" name="footnotetag534"></a><a href="#footnote534"><sup>534</sup></a> Here then the Gnostic doctrine +of æons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, +who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the +Valentinians "acknowledge that the one is the originator of +all" ("τον 'ενα 'ομολογουσιν αιτιον των παντων"), because with them +also, "the whole goes back to one" ("το παν εις 'ενα ανατρεχει").<a id="footnotetag535" name="footnotetag535"></a><a href="#footnote535"><sup>535</sup></a> +The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the +"economy of God" (οικονομια του Θεου) to Father, Son, and +Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number.<a id="footnotetag536" name="footnotetag536"></a><a href="#footnote536"><sup>536</sup></a> According +to Tertullian "a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes +truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy" ("trinitas +rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter +collecta hæresim facit") is already the watchword of the Christian +dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping +in view the different stages of God's economy, and distinguishing +between <i>dispositio</i>, <i>distinctio</i>, <i>numerus</i> on the one hand +and <i>divisio</i> on the other. At the beginning God was alone, +but <i>ratio</i> and <i>sermo</i> existed within him. In a certain sense then, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page259" id="page259"></a>[pg 259]</span> +he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even +men can carry on conversations with themselves and make +themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible +with God.<a id="footnotetag537" name="footnotetag537"></a><a href="#footnote537"><sup>537</sup></a> But as yet he was the only <i>person</i>.<a id="footnotetag538" name="footnotetag538"></a><a href="#footnote538"><sup>538</sup></a> The moment, +however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from +himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as +a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. +For "that which proceeds from such a great substance and has +created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance." +He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from +God "secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma"; +but as unity of substance is to be preserved ("<i>alius pater, +alius filius, alius non aliud</i>"—"<i>ego et pater unum sumus ad +substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est</i>"—"<i>tres +unum sunt, non unus</i>"—"the Father is one person and +the Son is another, different persons not different things", "<i>I +and the Father are one</i> refers to unity of substance, not to +singleness in number"—"the three are one thing not one person"), +the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to +the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root +(see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum 10).<a id="footnotetag539" name="footnotetag539"></a><a href="#footnote539"><sup>539</sup></a> For that very reason +"Son" is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has +emanated in this way (κατα μερισμον). Moreover, since he (as +well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father ("unius +substantia" = 'ομοουσιος) he has also the same <i>power</i><a id="footnotetag540" name="footnotetag540"></a><a href="#footnote540"><sup>540</sup></a> as regards +the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has +had it <i>ab initio</i>, from the very beginning of time.<a id="footnotetag541" name="footnotetag541"></a><a href="#footnote541"><sup>541</sup></a> On the +other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the +Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy +consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the +Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page260" id="page260"></a>[pg 260]</span> +is subordinate to the Father.<a id="footnotetag542" name="footnotetag542"></a><a href="#footnote542"><sup>542</sup></a> "Pater tota substantia est, filius +vero derivatio totius et portio".<a id="footnotetag543" name="footnotetag543"></a><a href="#footnote543"><sup>543</sup></a> This paradox is ultimately +based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness +of the Godhead, <i>i.e.</i>, the Father, is incapable of entering into +the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, +and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that +appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part +of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, +which has already in some fashion a finite element in +itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which +has an origin.<a id="footnotetag544" name="footnotetag544"></a><a href="#footnote544"><sup>544</sup></a> We would assert too much, were we to say +that Tertullian meant that the Son was simply the world-thought +itself; his insistance on the "unius substantiæ" disproves this. +But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated +for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the +world, whose sphere coincides with the world-thought, and whose +power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the +standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, <i>i.e.</i>, a God +whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but +from God's standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, +this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian +and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page261" id="page261"></a>[pg 261]</span> +as the Apologists; the Trinity only <i>appears</i> such, because the +unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in +truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is +simply the background of the process that produces the history +of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by +the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation +the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a +finite process;<a id="footnotetag545" name="footnotetag545"></a><a href="#footnote545"><sup>545</sup></a> and secondly by the fact that the Son himself +will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.<a id="footnotetag546" name="footnotetag546"></a><a href="#footnote546"><sup>546</sup></a> These words +no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, +but from that of God; for so long as history lasts "the Son +continues in his form." In its point of departure, its plan, and +its details this whole exposition is not distinguished from the +teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,<a id="footnotetag547" name="footnotetag547"></a><a href="#footnote547"><sup>547</sup></a> +but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted +to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and +the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification +of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian +united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with the utterances of +early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make +the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one +and the same building,<a id="footnotetag548" name="footnotetag548"></a><a href="#footnote548"><sup>548</sup></a> With peculiar versatility he contrived +to make himself at home in both wings.</p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page262" id="page262"></a>[pg 262]</span> + +<p>It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus.<a id="footnotetag549" name="footnotetag549"></a><a href="#footnote549"><sup>549</sup></a> +Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine +without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that +they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the +subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, +whom he views as God and man, the <i>starting-point</i> of his +speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. +It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks +of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not +identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the +world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.<a id="footnotetag550" name="footnotetag550"></a><a href="#footnote550"><sup>550</sup></a> That +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page263" id="page263"></a>[pg 263]</span> +he nevertheless makes Logos (μονογενης, πρωτοτοκος, "only begotten," +"first born") the regular designation of Christ as the +preëxistent One can only be explained from the apologetic +tradition which in his time was already recognised as authoritative +by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified +and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus +consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological +interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes subordinate +to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus' system +(in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined +as <i>recapitulatio</i> of the creation, redemption and creation +are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the +Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a +certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle +position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion +on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists +on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, +Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; +the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, +Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old +and New.</p> + +<p>Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine +element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside +of the Godhead of the Father. He confesses that he here +simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and +declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit +the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming +forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in +general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a +definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation +"Logos" to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the +inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple +essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought +not to hypostatise qualities.<a id="footnotetag551" name="footnotetag551"></a><a href="#footnote551"><sup>551</sup></a> Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls +the preëxistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains +the personal distinction between Father and Son. What makes +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page264" id="page264"></a>[pg 264]</span> +the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does +not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.<a id="footnotetag552" name="footnotetag552"></a><a href="#footnote552"><sup>552</sup></a> In +Irenæus' sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation +hypostasis of the Father, "the self-revelation of the self-conscious +God," and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For +according to him the Son <i>always</i> existed with God, <i>always</i> +revealed the Father, and it was always the <i>full</i> Godhead that +he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific +nature, <i>truly</i> God, and there is no distinction of essence between +him and God.<a id="footnotetag553" name="footnotetag553"></a><a href="#footnote553"><sup>553</sup></a> Now we might conclude from the strong +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page265" id="page265"></a>[pg 265]</span> +emphasis laid on "always" that Irenæus conceived a relationship +of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence +of God himself and existing independently of revelation. But +the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all +eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of +Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the +Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always +within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because +he gives a revelation. Little interested as Irenæus is in saying +anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, +naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the +universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead +beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting +on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside +of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental +answers are not essentially different from those of the +Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental +character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as "the hand of God," +the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish +Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible +elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who +dominates all, the head of Christ, <i>i.e.</i>, he who bears the creation +and <i>his</i> Logos.<a id="footnotetag554" name="footnotetag554"></a><a href="#footnote554"><sup>554</sup></a> Irenæus had no opportunity of writing against +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page266" id="page266"></a>[pg 266]</span> +the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic +writings of his. It cannot therefore he determined how he +would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the +danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. +It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead +and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each +other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, +influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early-Christian, +anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this +reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not +really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the +conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according +to Irenæus, "God placed himself in the relationship of +Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his +likeness the man who was to become his Son;"<a id="footnotetag555" name="footnotetag555"></a><a href="#footnote555"><sup>555</sup></a> but we ought +not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite +purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question +falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the +incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, +and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw +a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists regarding +the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological +question.<a id="footnotetag556" name="footnotetag556"></a><a href="#footnote556"><sup>556</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page267" id="page267"></a>[pg 267]</span> + +<p>Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus' +views with regard to the <i>destination of man</i>, the <i>original state</i>, +the <i>fall</i>, and <i>sin</i>; because the heterogeneous elements of his +"theology," the apologetic and moralistic the realistic, and the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page268" id="page268"></a>[pg 268]</span> +Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies +into which he was led are very plain. But these very +contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal +system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; +hence his attitude on these points is typical.<a id="footnotetag557" name="footnotetag557"></a><a href="#footnote557"><sup>557</sup></a> The +apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed +with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just +from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore +man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection +on man from the beginning, but the latter was incapable of +grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, <i>i.e.</i>, +incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and +is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the <i>destination</i> +of man, and he must accordingly have been made <i>capable</i> +of it.<a id="footnotetag558" name="footnotetag558"></a><a href="#footnote558"><sup>558</sup></a> That destination is realised through the guidance of God +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page269" id="page269"></a>[pg 269]</span> +and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from +free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the +one hand involved in man's possession of the divine image, +which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at +bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness +to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God's +Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. +Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man's likeness +consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient immediately +after the creation, this likeness to God did not become +perfect.<a id="footnotetag559" name="footnotetag559"></a><a href="#footnote559"><sup>559</sup></a> Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page270" id="page270"></a>[pg 270]</span> +which he was destined, <i>i.e.</i>, he is forfeit to death. This death +was transmitted to Adam's whole posterity.<a id="footnotetag560" name="footnotetag560"></a><a href="#footnote560"><sup>560</sup></a> Here Irenæus +followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than +the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very +strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man's fall<a id="footnotetag561" name="footnotetag561"></a><a href="#footnote561"><sup>561</sup></a> and, +secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. +It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul's case, the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page271" id="page271"></a>[pg 271]</span> +consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that +disobedience was conducive to man's development. Man had +to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order +that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the +commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn +through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him +by nature as they do to God.<a id="footnotetag562" name="footnotetag562"></a><a href="#footnote562"><sup>562</sup></a> Here life and death are always +the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is only when he quotes +sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; +and ethical consequences of the fall are not mentioned +in this connection. "The original destination of man was not +abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was +intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection +to which they were destined."<a id="footnotetag563" name="footnotetag563"></a><a href="#footnote563"><sup>563</sup></a> Moreover, the goodness of God +immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of +life and in the sentence of temporal death.<a id="footnotetag564" name="footnotetag564"></a><a href="#footnote564"><sup>564</sup></a> What significance +belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is +the man who first realised in his person the destination of +humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and +accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher +who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them to +direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine +commandments, thereby restoring, <i>i.e.</i>, strengthening, freedom, +so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.<a id="footnotetag565" name="footnotetag565"></a><a href="#footnote565"><sup>565</sup></a> +One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page272" id="page272"></a>[pg 272]</span> +and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances +of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same +doctrine;<a id="footnotetag566" name="footnotetag566"></a><a href="#footnote566"><sup>566</sup></a> only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of +God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man's will and +capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in +justification of God's ways.<a id="footnotetag567" name="footnotetag567"></a><a href="#footnote567"><sup>567</sup></a></p> + +<p>But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of +thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic +doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence +of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic +teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with +them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: "it +is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God" +("impossibile est sine deo discere deum") was a conviction +which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their +moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological +signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a +Christological sense,<a id="footnotetag568" name="footnotetag568"></a><a href="#footnote568"><sup>568</sup></a> and at the same time conceived the blessing +of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility +consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience +IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page273" id="page273"></a>[pg 273]</span> +has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant +fellowship with God and dependence on him.<a id="footnotetag569" name="footnotetag569"></a><a href="#footnote569"><sup>569</sup></a> No doubt +he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation +of human nature; but the point of immediate importance +here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ +that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this +he has now also a different idea of the original destination of +man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in +the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordance with the +Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, +the "longa hominum expositio," was recapitulated by Christ in +himself; in other words he restored humanity <i>to what it originally +was</i> and again included under one head what was divided.<a id="footnotetag570" name="footnotetag570"></a><a href="#footnote570"><sup>570</sup></a> +If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before +and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction +to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: "What +we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and +likeness of God, we recover in Christ."<a id="footnotetag571" name="footnotetag571"></a><a href="#footnote571"><sup>571</sup></a> Adam, however, is +humanity; in other words, as all humanity is united and renewed +through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. +Accordingly "the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation +which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belonging +to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as +Christ's obedience and possession of salvation are the property +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page274" id="page274"></a>[pg 274]</span> +of all mankind united under him as their head."<a id="footnotetag572" name="footnotetag572"></a><a href="#footnote572"><sup>572</sup></a> In the first +Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; +in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, +bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; +through its victory over the first man death descended +upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.<a id="footnotetag573" name="footnotetag573"></a><a href="#footnote573"><sup>573</sup></a> +Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all +mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In +this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but +of a mystic unity<a id="footnotetag574" name="footnotetag574"></a><a href="#footnote574"><sup>574</sup></a> as in the case of Christ, viewed as the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page275" id="page275"></a>[pg 275]</span> +second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23<a id="footnotetag575" name="footnotetag575"></a><a href="#footnote575"><sup>575</sup></a> show what +an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea +assumed in Irenæus' mind. This is, however, more especially +evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless +Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been +overcome by the devil.<a id="footnotetag576" name="footnotetag576"></a><a href="#footnote576"><sup>576</sup></a> It was merely his moralistic train of +thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a +restoration of <i>all</i> individual men.</p> + +<p>This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity +corresponds to Irenæus' doctrine of the God-man. The historical +importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. +At the present day, ecclesiastical Christianity, so far +as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human +in Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work +of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint +as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; +he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like +Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe +to him the idea of the "two natures," which remain in their +integrity—that formula which owes its adoption to the influence +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page276" id="page276"></a>[pg 276]</span> +of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus' thought "the Son +of God became the Son of man," ("filius dei factus filius hominis"). +Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret +the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint +of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in +regard to salvation is also an epoch-making fact.</p> + +<p>"Filius dei filius hominis factus," "it is one and the same +Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary +union of an æon and a man, but one and the same person, +who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended"—this +along with the dogma of God the Creator is the cardinal doctrine +of Irenæus:<a id="footnotetag577" name="footnotetag577"></a><a href="#footnote577"><sup>577</sup></a> "Jesus Christ truly man and truly God" +("Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus").<a id="footnotetag578" name="footnotetag578"></a><a href="#footnote578"><sup>578</sup></a> It is only the Church +that adheres to this doctrine, for "none of the heretics hold the +opinion that the Word of God became flesh" ("secundum nullam +sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est").<a id="footnotetag579" name="footnotetag579"></a><a href="#footnote579"><sup>579</sup></a> +What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really +the Word of God, <i>i.e.</i>, is God, (2) that this Word really became +man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. +Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the "Ebionites" +as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ's +advent was the descent of one of the many æons. In opposition +to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural +and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in +favour of the divinity of Christ,<a id="footnotetag580" name="footnotetag580"></a><a href="#footnote580"><sup>580</sup></a> and moreover argues that we +would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus +Christ had only been a man.<a id="footnotetag581" name="footnotetag581"></a><a href="#footnote581"><sup>581</sup></a> In this connection he also discussed +the birth from the virgin.<a id="footnotetag582" name="footnotetag582"></a><a href="#footnote582"><sup>582</sup></a> He not only proved it from +prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him +a parallel between Adam and Eve on the one hand and Christ +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page277" id="page277"></a>[pg 277]</span> +and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the +virgin.<a id="footnotetag583" name="footnotetag583"></a><a href="#footnote583"><sup>583</sup></a> He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was +really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with +God and always present to the human race, that descended.<a id="footnotetag584" name="footnotetag584"></a><a href="#footnote584"><sup>584</sup></a> +He who became man was not a being foreign to the world—this +is said in opposition to Marcion—but the Lord of the world +and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality +of the body of Christ, <i>i.e.</i>, the essential identity of the humanity +of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, +and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this +identity.<a id="footnotetag585" name="footnotetag585"></a><a href="#footnote585"><sup>585</sup></a> In the latter he also includes the fact that Jesus must +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page278" id="page278"></a>[pg 278]</span> +have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions +of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.<a id="footnotetag586" name="footnotetag586"></a><a href="#footnote586"><sup>586</sup></a> +Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become +the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom +the Logos is permanently united with humanity.<a id="footnotetag587" name="footnotetag587"></a><a href="#footnote587"><sup>587</sup></a> Irenæus called +this union "union of the Word of God with the creature" +("adunitio verbi dei ad plasma")<a id="footnotetag588" name="footnotetag588"></a><a href="#footnote588"><sup>588</sup></a> and "blending and communion +of God and man" ("commixtio et communio dei et hominis")<a id="footnotetag589" name="footnotetag589"></a><a href="#footnote589"><sup>589</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page279" id="page279"></a>[pg 279]</span> +without thereby describing it any more clearly.<a id="footnotetag590" name="footnotetag590"></a><a href="#footnote590"><sup>590</sup></a> He views +it as perfect, for, <i>as a rule</i>, he will not listen to any separation +of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.<a id="footnotetag591" name="footnotetag591"></a><a href="#footnote591"><sup>591</sup></a> +The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is +not found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page280" id="page280"></a>[pg 280]</span> +occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking +as a theologian, but expressing his belief.<a id="footnotetag592" name="footnotetag592"></a><a href="#footnote592"><sup>592</sup></a> In his utterances +about the God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenæus. Like the +latter he uses the expression "man united with God" ("homo +deo mixtus")<a id="footnotetag593" name="footnotetag593"></a><a href="#footnote593"><sup>593</sup></a> and like him he applies the predicates of the +man to the Son of God.<a id="footnotetag594" name="footnotetag594"></a><a href="#footnote594"><sup>594</sup></a> But he goes further, or rather, in +the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a +manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious +significance of the proposition, "the Son of God made Son of +man" ("filius dei filius hominis factus"). He speaks of a "corporal +and spiritual, <i>i.e.</i>, divine, substance of the Lord", ("corporalis +et spiritalis (<i>i.e.</i>, divina) substantia domini")<a id="footnotetag595" name="footnotetag595"></a><a href="#footnote595"><sup>595</sup></a> of +"either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ" ("utraque +substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi"), of the "creation of +two substances which Christ himself also possesses," ("conditio +duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat")<a id="footnotetag596" name="footnotetag596"></a><a href="#footnote596"><sup>596</sup></a> and of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page281" id="page281"></a>[pg 281]</span> +the "twofold condition not blended but united in one person—God +and man" ("duplex status <i>non confusus sed conjunctus</i> in +una persona—deus et homo".)<a id="footnotetag597" name="footnotetag597"></a><a href="#footnote597"><sup>597</sup></a> Here we already have in a +complete form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances +in one person.<a id="footnotetag598" name="footnotetag598"></a><a href="#footnote598"><sup>598</sup></a> At the same time, however, we can +clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.<a id="footnotetag599" name="footnotetag599"></a><a href="#footnote599"><sup>599</sup></a> +He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic +principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail +that the proposition "the Word became flesh" ("verbum caro +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page282" id="page282"></a>[pg 282]</span> +factum") denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea +of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos' assumption +of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages.<a id="footnotetag600" name="footnotetag600"></a><a href="#footnote600"><sup>600</sup></a> Tertullian, +on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) +opponents who understood John's statement in the sense of the +Word's transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued +against the "assumption of flesh from the Virgin" ("assumptio +carnis ex virgine");<a id="footnotetag601" name="footnotetag601"></a><a href="#footnote601"><sup>601</sup></a> and, in the second place, he had to do +with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from +the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, +and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.<a id="footnotetag602" name="footnotetag602"></a><a href="#footnote602"><sup>602</sup></a> +In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid +great weight on formulæ like "the crucified God," "God consented +to be born" ("deus crucifixus," "nasci se voluit deus") +and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic +interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from +God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him +human weaknesses—which was already a further step,—sharply +emphasised the "distinct function" ("distincte agere") of the +two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With +Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, +and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that +conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity +of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The "deus +factus homo" ("verbum caro factus") presents quite insuperable +difficulties, as soon as "theology" can no longer be banished. +Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page283" id="page283"></a>[pg 283]</span> +for all his elucidations of "substance" and "person" are of +this nature.</p> + +<p>A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos +doctrine in the struggle against the "Patripassians" was the +increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity +and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only +essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert +the substantial reality of Christ's body, it was Tertullian who +distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God +in order to prove that he was not a <i>tertium quid</i>. The discriminating +intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a +problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the +struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed +the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If +I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of +which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect +unity of Christ's person. The first was the intellectual contemplation +of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second was +found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition +connected with these.<a id="footnotetag603" name="footnotetag603"></a><a href="#footnote603"><sup>603</sup></a> With regard to the first we may point +out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and +divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the beginning +by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image +of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is +the realisation of our possession of God's image;<a id="footnotetag604" name="footnotetag604"></a><a href="#footnote604"><sup>604</sup></a> but this +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page284" id="page284"></a>[pg 284]</span> +thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the +Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with +it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when +it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the +human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more +accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion +with God,<a id="footnotetag605" name="footnotetag605"></a><a href="#footnote605"><sup>605</sup></a> till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. +For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element +in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new +Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That +Irenæus, in explaining the life of Jesus as that of Adam according +to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself +as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: +If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man +concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how +little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the +perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he +writes: "'ωσπερ γαρ ην ανθρωπος 'ινα πειρασθη, 'ουτω και λογος 'ινα +δοξασθη. ησυχαζοντος μεν του λογου εν τω πειραζεσθαι και σταυρουσθαι +και αποθνησκειν συγγινομενου δε τω ανθρωπω εν τω νικαν και +'υπομενειν και χρηστευεσθαι και ανιστασθαι και αναλαμβανεσθαι" +("For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he +was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained +quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, +but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, +and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, +and was received up into heaven"). From these words it is +plain that Irenæus preferred to assume that the divine and human +natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the +perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which +would be at the same time a divine manhood. The "discrete +agere" of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect +manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental +quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page285" id="page285"></a>[pg 285]</span> +in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders +him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the +perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the +humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the "deus +crucifixus" and to lay the foundation for Tertullian's formulæ. +With regard to the second point we may remark that there were +not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared +as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These +as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the +greatest difficulties in the way of the Logos Christology. Of +what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is +God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power +of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, +that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? +Irenæus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) +by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the +<i>man</i> Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation +which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.<a id="footnotetag606" name="footnotetag606"></a><a href="#footnote606"><sup>606</sup></a> This +separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of humanity +that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the +same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, +which in succeeding times became the chief art and +subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one +cannot think in realistic fashion of the "deus homo factus" +without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page286" id="page286"></a>[pg 286]</span> +to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was +obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the +assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption +which in the earlier period has only "Gnostic" testimony +in its favour. Before Irenæus' day, in fact, none but these +earliest theologians taught that Jesus Christ had two natures, +and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The +Gnostic distinction of the Jesus <i>patibilis</i> ("capable of suffering") +and the Christ απαθης ("impassible") is essentially identical +with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves +that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than +the Gnostic, <i>i.e.</i>, scientific, adaptation of the formula: "filius dei +filius hominis factus." No doubt the old early-Christian interest +still makes itself felt in the <i>assertion</i> of the one person. +Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian's +Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking +into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of +Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: "deus +passus, deus crucifixus est" ("God suffered, God was crucified").<a id="footnotetag607" name="footnotetag607"></a><a href="#footnote607"><sup>607</sup></a></p> + +<p>But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page287" id="page287"></a>[pg 287]</span> +Irenæus is the idea that there was the most complete unity +between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary +consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that "<i>Jesus Christus +factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse</i>"<a id="footnotetag608" name="footnotetag608"></a><a href="#footnote608"><sup>608</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page288" id="page288"></a>[pg 288]</span> +("Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might +become what he himself is"). But, in accordance with the recapitulation +theory, Irenæus developed the "factus est quod +sumus nos" in such a way that the individual portions of the +life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done +but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in +the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ +as "salvation and saviour and saving" ("salus et salvator et +salutare"),<a id="footnotetag609" name="footnotetag609"></a><a href="#footnote609"><sup>609</sup></a> but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. +All that has taken place between the conception and +the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. +This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of +the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems +to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of +prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental +significance. Here also we recognise the influence of "Gnosis," +nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the +Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, +in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, +and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.<a id="footnotetag610" name="footnotetag610"></a><a href="#footnote610"><sup>610</sup></a> +But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he +decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he +applies the benefits of Christ's work not to the "pneumatic" +<i>ipso facto</i>, but in principle to all men, though practically only +to those who listen to the Saviour's words and adorn themselves +with works of righteousness.<a id="footnotetag611" name="footnotetag611"></a><a href="#footnote611"><sup>611</sup></a> Irenæus presented this +work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page289" id="page289"></a>[pg 289]</span> +the realisation of man's original destiny, that is, being in communion +with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like +God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences +of Adam's disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men +from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks +upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions +Irenæus fell back upon the <i>person</i> of Christ. Here, at the same +time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical +passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him +to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians +before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical +importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation +in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became +flesh and suffered, among the articles that are a matter of consideration +for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). +Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according +to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession +and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the +resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not +merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its +content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain +the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God +and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question "cur deus +homo" in the highest sense.<a id="footnotetag612" name="footnotetag612"></a><a href="#footnote612"><sup>612</sup></a> Finally, he adopted from Paul +the thought that Christ's real work of salvation consists in his +death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two +propositions, "<i>filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos</i>" +("the Son of God became Son of man for us") and "filius dei +passus est propter nos" ("the Son of God suffered for us") as +the most vital ones. He did not, however, clearly show which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page290" id="page290"></a>[pg 290]</span> +of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation +of Irenæus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was +destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation +as to Christ's work in succeeding times. For on the one +hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the +cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking +only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not +to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved +in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, +Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his +successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as +the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life +of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. +We see this at once not only from his conception +of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way +of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, +as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating +counterpart of Adam's birth from the virgin earth, and as the +obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve's +disobedience, so the story of Jesus' temptation is to him the +recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam's temptation. +In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil +(Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind +from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas +the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no injustice, +untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by +which Jesus resisted Satan's temptation.<a id="footnotetag613" name="footnotetag613"></a><a href="#footnote613"><sup>613</sup></a> As yet Irenæus is +quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights +upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished +his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength +of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption +from the devil as accomplished by the <i>death</i> of Christ, +and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the +"apostasy" for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, +however, develop this thought any further.<a id="footnotetag614" name="footnotetag614"></a><a href="#footnote614"><sup>614</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page291" id="page291"></a>[pg 291]</span> + +<p>His idea of the <i>reconciliation</i> of God is just as rudimentary, +and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw +the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the +"righteous flesh" as such, at other times in the "wood." Here +also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience +at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience +at the tree God is reconciled.<a id="footnotetag615" name="footnotetag615"></a><a href="#footnote615"><sup>615</sup></a> But teachings as to vicarious +suffering on the part of Christ are not found in Irenæus, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page292" id="page292"></a>[pg 292]</span> +and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of +a sacrifice offered to God.<a id="footnotetag616" name="footnotetag616"></a><a href="#footnote616"><sup>616</sup></a> According to this author the reconciliation +virtually consists in Christ's restoring man to communion +and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of +sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through +Adam's sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness +of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has +not the meaning of an <i>abolition</i> of sin. He connects the redemption +with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical +phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the +<i>consequences</i> of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.<a id="footnotetag617" name="footnotetag617"></a><a href="#footnote617"><sup>617</sup></a> +Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ's work +which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. +In this connection Irenæus employed the following +categories: <i>restoring of the likeness of God in humanity</i>; <i>abolition +of death</i>; <i>connection and union of man with God</i>; <i>adoption +of men as sons of God and as gods</i>; <i>imparting of the Spirit +who now becomes accustomed to abide with men</i>;<a id="footnotetag618" name="footnotetag618"></a><a href="#footnote618"><sup>618</sup></a> <i>imparting +of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him</i>; <i>bestowal +of everlasting life</i>. All these are only the different aspects of +one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, +could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by +God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not +as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his <i>acts</i> are +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page293" id="page293"></a>[pg 293]</span> +thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his +constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal +significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but +as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they +"according to their virtue in their generation have not only +feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously +towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and +to hear his voice."<a id="footnotetag619" name="footnotetag619"></a><a href="#footnote619"><sup>619</sup></a> Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately +joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, +whose head he himself is.<a id="footnotetag620" name="footnotetag620"></a><a href="#footnote620"><sup>620</sup></a> This Church is the communion of +the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him +and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work +of Christ the God-man is fulfilled.</p> + +<p>In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament +exegesis, we again find the same aspects of Christ's work as +in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption +recedes into the background.<a id="footnotetag621" name="footnotetag621"></a><a href="#footnote621"><sup>621</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page294" id="page294"></a>[pg 294]</span> + +<p>Nevertheless the <i>eschatology</i> as set forth by Irenæus in the +fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the +work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather +appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page295" id="page295"></a>[pg 295]</span> +speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the +<i>regula fidei</i>, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the +material hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would +be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the +hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them +in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the +Gnostics and guaranteed by the <i>regula</i> and the New Testament.<a id="footnotetag622" name="footnotetag622"></a><a href="#footnote622"><sup>622</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page296" id="page296"></a>[pg 296]</span> +The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, +Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these +hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and +Justin.<a id="footnotetag623" name="footnotetag623"></a><a href="#footnote623"><sup>623</sup></a> But this is the clearest proof that all these theologians +were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon +them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation +in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will +shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow the Roman +empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed +believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact +a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page297" id="page297"></a>[pg 297]</span> +God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting +perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. +The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both +Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position +that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of +the theologians, <i>i.e.</i>, the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the +Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of +Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, +for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and +the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and +also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be +traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise +Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and Tertullian, +with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of +thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double +resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really +a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the +strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics +lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the +basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers possible +and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures +the future of a religious conception within a church, but its +elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But +no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and +this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed—the church system +itself.</p> + +<p>As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were +fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the +belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea +spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline +verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who +preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the Gallic +bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main +features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth +Book of Irenæus.<a id="footnotetag624" name="footnotetag624"></a><a href="#footnote624"><sup>624</sup></a> There is no need to show in detail that +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page298" id="page298"></a>[pg 298]</span> +chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much +opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, +as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be +realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper +place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page299" id="page299"></a>[pg 299]</span> +and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of +its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics.</p> + +<p>But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. +Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused +to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and +Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus<a id="footnotetag625" name="footnotetag625"></a><a href="#footnote625"><sup>625</sup></a> expressly argued +against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, +we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not +only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of +John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. +These were the so-called Alogi.<a id="footnotetag626" name="footnotetag626"></a><a href="#footnote626"><sup>626</sup></a> But in the second +century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. +It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was +almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of +the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the +West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the +first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears +to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic +did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops +of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to +combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us +by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of +Alexandria, about that father's struggles with whole communities +in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest +interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology +had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not +only cherished and defended against being explained away, but +were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.<a id="footnotetag627" name="footnotetag627"></a><a href="#footnote627"><sup>627</sup></a> Cultured +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page300" id="page300"></a>[pg 300]</span> +theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and +religious philosophy; but the "simplices et idiotæ" could only +understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually +obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic +theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes +the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they understood +was taken from them, and they received in return a faith +they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and +the old hopes decayed of themselves and the <i>authority</i> of a +mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation +or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in +the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also +lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, +and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is +a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as +remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, +when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to +dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes +retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know +of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With +this, however, was preserved a portion of the earliest Christianity +which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of +Augustine.</p> + +<p>Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding +the Old Testament which the creation of the New produced +among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas +and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory +of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page301" id="page301"></a>[pg 301]</span> +book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout +to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could +be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply +opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to +which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation +of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The +views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position +between the two notions. These distinguished different components +of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to +the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent +beings. In this way they both established a connection +between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and +contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. +This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in +the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the +Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered +the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find +in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far +as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature +contained in the Old Testament—the Decalogue—and the ceremonial +law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the +latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was +allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this +theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of +justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on +the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression +to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the +<i>new</i> law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of +nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden +of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was +allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful +than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were +conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as +concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to +protect them from the worst evil, polytheism.</p> + +<p>Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the +creation of a New Testament had necessarily a double consequence. +On the one hand, the proposition that the "Father of +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page302" id="page302"></a>[pg 302]</span> +Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the +Old Testament" required the strictest adherence to the unity +of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view +of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; +on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, +it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior +to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the +Christian doctrine worked out by the Gnostics and Marcion had +in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We +now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of +this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has +continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the +present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice +still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the +Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the +word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical +interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that +the Jewish people had a covenant with God.</p> + +<p>With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the +unity of the two Testaments, Irenæus and Tertullian gave a +most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,<a id="footnotetag628" name="footnotetag628"></a><a href="#footnote628"><sup>628</sup></a> +and primarily indeed with the same means as the older teachers +had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared +in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced +both Old and New Testaments.<a id="footnotetag629" name="footnotetag629"></a><a href="#footnote629"><sup>629</sup></a> Moreover, as the two have +the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas +the early Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the +Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth +which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ +and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword +is: "Seek the type" ("Typum quæras").<a id="footnotetag630" name="footnotetag630"></a><a href="#footnote630"><sup>630</sup></a> But they went +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page303" id="page303"></a>[pg 303]</span> +a step further still. In opposition to Marcion's antitheses and +his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a +petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they +seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the +New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers +to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met +with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least +when they are arguing and defending their position against the +Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first +place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer +an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such +efforts to avoid the "Jewish" conception of the Old Testament. +Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the +observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles +and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they +did not separate the Old Testament God from the Christian +Deity.<a id="footnotetag631" name="footnotetag631"></a><a href="#footnote631"><sup>631</sup></a> In connection with this we observe that the radical +antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus +and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a +covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old +Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the +Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the +knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain +clear expression with them because their works contain no +systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second +place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred +ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find +a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament +commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian +we find this only in its most rudimentary form;<a id="footnotetag632" name="footnotetag632"></a><a href="#footnote632"><sup>632</sup></a> but in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page304" id="page304"></a>[pg 304]</span> +the course of the third century these needs grew mightily<a id="footnotetag633" name="footnotetag633"></a><a href="#footnote633"><sup>633</sup></a> and +were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to +become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that +in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was +formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists.</p> + +<p>With reference to the second point, we may remark that just +when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, +and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the +Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard +of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back by the creation and +authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived +the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth +to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development +in the Church ends with the <i>complexus oppositorum</i>, which nowhere +allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the +great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain +point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction +between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, +and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest theologians (the Gnostics) +and the New Testament suggested to them the thought +of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the +New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal +sense of the ceremonial law and God's covenant with the Jews; +and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in +the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of +salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained +the conception of a divine <i>accommodation and pedagogy</i>, +and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts +of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the +great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted +by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy +without modifying it;<a id="footnotetag634" name="footnotetag634"></a><a href="#footnote634"><sup>634</sup></a> and thus appears as something intermediate +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page305" id="page305"></a>[pg 305]</span> +between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the +unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which +neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised +the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified +in regarding this history of salvation approved by the +Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and +Tertullian generally, as a Gnosis "toned down" and reconciled +with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a +historical view that still shines forth from this "history of salvation" +as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised +in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.<a id="footnotetag635" name="footnotetag635"></a><a href="#footnote635"><sup>635</sup></a> Still, +it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and +especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history +that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating +story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; +and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever +and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that +it is development and history.</p> + +<p>The fundamental features of Irenæus' conception are as +follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation +of grace both emanated from one and the same God, <i>and were +granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate +to the times</i>.<a id="footnotetag636" name="footnotetag636"></a><a href="#footnote636"><sup>636</sup></a> The two are in part different; but the +difference must be conceived as due to causes<a id="footnotetag637" name="footnotetag637"></a><a href="#footnote637"><sup>637</sup></a> that do not +affect the unity of the author and of the main points.<a id="footnotetag638" name="footnotetag638"></a><a href="#footnote638"><sup>638</sup></a> We +must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point +of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing +towards God; God is always the giver, man always the receiver;<a id="footnotetag639" name="footnotetag639"></a><a href="#footnote639"><sup>639</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page306" id="page306"></a>[pg 306]</span> +God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not +God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, +which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood +stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, +conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, +dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in +the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent +bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore +the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the +Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the +level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides +it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.<a id="footnotetag640" name="footnotetag640"></a><a href="#footnote640"><sup>640</sup></a> The +fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, <i>i.e.</i>, +natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in +his heart<a id="footnotetag641" name="footnotetag641"></a><a href="#footnote641"><sup>641</sup></a> by the creator. He who preserves these, as for +example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenæus +leaves Adam's sin entirely out of sight). But it was God's will +to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his +Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself +to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained +from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was +not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter +of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.<a id="footnotetag642" name="footnotetag642"></a><a href="#footnote642"><sup>642</sup></a> +But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, +they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest condition. +From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old +Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page307" id="page307"></a>[pg 307]</span> +are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this +period that the training of the human race is given to them; but +it is really the Jewish <i>nation</i> that he keeps in view, and through this +he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.<a id="footnotetag643" name="footnotetag643"></a><a href="#footnote643"><sup>643</sup></a> When righteousness +and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people +forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator +of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which +contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had +fallen into oblivion.<a id="footnotetag644" name="footnotetag644"></a><a href="#footnote644"><sup>644</sup></a> But when they made to themselves a +golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then +the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, +as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the +ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were +bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them +from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was +thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; +but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent +of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both +of these meanings originate with God, <i>i.e.</i>, with Christ; for "how +is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?" +("quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset") +IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover +we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the +Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation +was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, +and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not +censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which +men had a <i>covenant</i> with God and in which they also possessed +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page308" id="page308"></a>[pg 308]</span> +the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to +follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; "lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere +Christum"). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested +himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he +indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. In +the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments +of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in +them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into +humanity.<a id="footnotetag645" name="footnotetag645"></a><a href="#footnote645"><sup>645</sup></a> Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being +now sufficiently trained, were to receive the "testamentum libertatis" +and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the +Son of God with the flesh the <i>agnitio filii</i> first became possible +to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was +to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was +necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, +had been disfigured and blunted by the "traditio seniorum". +First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, +it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching +out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling +the law in its whole severity; and lastly the <i>particularia legis</i>, +<i>i.e.</i>, the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page309" id="page309"></a>[pg 309]</span> +connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every +transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also +had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first +permitted to the Gentile Christians. Thus, no doubt, Christ himself +is the end of the law, but only in so far as he has abolished +the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole +purity and severity, and given us himself.</p> + +<p>The question as to the difference between the New Testament +and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following +manner. It consists (1) in the <i>agnitio filii</i> and consequent transformation +of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the +restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because +it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation +lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the heart.<a id="footnotetag646" name="footnotetag646"></a><a href="#footnote646"><sup>646</sup></a> But in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page310" id="page310"></a>[pg 310]</span> +these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his +opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves +this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation +of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that +passage to be those of the Old Testament.<a id="footnotetag647" name="footnotetag647"></a><a href="#footnote647"><sup>647</sup></a> He therefore views +the two Testaments as of the same nature, but "greater is +the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings +bondage" ("maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ +data est in servitutem"). Through the two covenants the accomplishment +of salvation was to be hastened "for there is one +salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are +numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few;" +("una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, +præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad +deum"). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; +and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always +the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who +are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct +statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people +have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence +after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this +nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. +It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital +of Christ's earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according +to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, +just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.<a id="footnotetag648" name="footnotetag648"></a><a href="#footnote648"><sup>648</sup></a></p> + +<p>This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an +immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the +present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page311" id="page311"></a>[pg 311]</span> +with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon +reckoned as Paul's conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. +Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, +amplified it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist +ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio—Moses—Christ—Paraclete). +But this addition was not accepted by the +Church.<a id="footnotetag649" name="footnotetag649"></a><a href="#footnote649"><sup>649</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page312" id="page312"></a>[pg 312]</span> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_V_III" id="SEC_V_III"></a>3. <i>Results to ecclesiastical Christianity.</i></h3> + +<p>As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had +no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological +propositions because their opponents were theologians. Hence +the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the +Western Church of the third century, does not appear in the +adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological +fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted +in an antignostic sense<a id="footnotetag650" name="footnotetag650"></a><a href="#footnote650"><sup>650</sup></a>. As yet the rule of faith and theology +nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the +third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries +did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather +imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, +and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. If we +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page313" id="page313"></a>[pg 313]</span> +wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally +prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let +us compare Cyprian's work "Testimonia", written for a layman, +with Novatian's work "De Trinitate".</p> + +<p>In the "Testimonia" the doctrine of the two Testaments, as +developed by Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual +dogmas are set. The doctrine of God, which should have been +placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book +probably because the person addressed required no instruction +on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical +theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have +merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All +propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two +Testaments and thereby proved.<a id="footnotetag651" name="footnotetag651"></a><a href="#footnote651"><sup>651</sup></a> The theological counterpart +to this is Novatian's work "De Trinitate". This first great +Latin work that appeared in Rome is highly important. In regard +to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its +influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be +compared with Origen's work περι αρχων. Otherwise indeed it +differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology +of the West, devoid of philosophy and speculation, differs in +general from that of the East. But it sums up in classic fashion +the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of which +were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the +work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis +of the work. In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive +exposition of his doctrine of God in the first eight +chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish +the correct Christology in opposition to the heretics who look +on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself; the Holy +Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29 treats +of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation +and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian's treatise against +Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; +but everything is extended, and made more systematic +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page314" id="page314"></a>[pg 314]</span> +and polished. No trace of Platonism is to be found in this +dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian +syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian +opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the +work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help +concluding that this work must have made a deep impression +wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter +are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. +It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian's +type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, however, +as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already +approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.<a id="footnotetag652" name="footnotetag652"></a><a href="#footnote652"><sup>652</sup></a> +Novatian adopted Tertullian's formulæ "one substance, three +persons" ("una substantia, tres personæ"), "from the substance +of God" ("ex substantia dei"), "always with the Father" +("semper apud patrem"), "God and man" ("deus et homo"), +"two substances" ("duæ substantiæ"), "one person" ("una +persona"), as well as his expressions for the union and separation +of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving +them a wider extension.<a id="footnotetag653" name="footnotetag653"></a><a href="#footnote653"><sup>653</sup></a> Taking his book in all we may see +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page315" id="page315"></a>[pg 315]</span> +that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic <i>vademecum</i>, +which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scripture, +must have been of extraordinary service.</p> + +<p>The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page316" id="page316"></a>[pg 316]</span> +to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, +especially in the West, were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the +identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that +is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page317" id="page317"></a>[pg 317]</span> +the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament, +and the declaration that the Old Testament is God's +book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, +(5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from +freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two +Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his +personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his +humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and +conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning +manifestation of God's grace to all men, (10) the resurrection +of man in soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation +of these propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses +were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the +Logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of God and +of the two Testaments could not have prevailed without this +theory. How this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course +of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and +legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be +shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion +that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly +kingdom of Christ was still the more widely diffused among the +Churches of the third century;<a id="footnotetag654" name="footnotetag654"></a><a href="#footnote654"><sup>654</sup></a> but that the other hope, viz., +that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. +The latter result was due to men's increasing indifference +to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing +that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy +which was steadily gaining ground. The hope of deification +is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature +do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built +up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand +to be realised, because it is only in it that he can come to +himself. The fact that Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, +and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate +Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page318" id="page318"></a>[pg 318]</span> +through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the +spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity. But, when +the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation +of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a +speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of +religious knowledge was made the central point of the system +and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.<a id="footnotetag655" name="footnotetag655"></a><a href="#footnote655"><sup>655</sup></a></p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote460" name="footnote460"></a><b>Footnote 460:</b><a href="#footnotetag460"> (return) </a><p> Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren's and Harvey's editions), Melito +(Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler's and Reiflerscheid's editions), Hippolytus +(Fabricius', Lagarde's, Duncker's and Schneidewin's editions), Cyprian (Hartel's +edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und +ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen, +Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, "Hippolytus und Kallistus," 1853. Many monographs +on Irenæus and Tertullian.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote461" name="footnote461"></a><b>Footnote 461:</b><a href="#footnotetag461"> (return) </a><p> The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and the later old +Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of +Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists +and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand +modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view—if the comparison be +here allowed—without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher +and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus without taking +into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote462" name="footnote462"></a><b>Footnote 462:</b><a href="#footnotetag462"> (return) </a><p> That Melito is to be named here follows both from Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, +and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see +Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 24 +ff. +The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that "ancient" quoted +by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain +sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature. We have no material for +judging of them with certainty. The New Testament was not yet at the disposal +of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and Irenæus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote463" name="footnote463"></a><b>Footnote 463:</b><a href="#footnotetag463"> (return) </a><p>See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote464" name="footnote464"></a><b>Footnote 464:</b><a href="#footnotetag464"> (return) </a><p> Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulæ +fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et trades, et omnem libidinem curiositatis +effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari"; +but the preceding exposition of the <i>regula</i> shows that scarcely any scope remained +for the "curiositas," and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did not +mean that freedom seriously.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote465" name="footnote465"></a><b>Footnote 465:</b><a href="#footnotetag465"> (return) </a><p> +The most important point was that the Pauline theology, towards which Gnostics, +Marcionites, and Encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no +longer be ignored. See Overbeck's Basler Univ.—Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately +shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote466" name="footnote466"></a><b>Footnote 466:</b><a href="#footnotetag466"> (return) </a><p> +See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in +Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: εγω δε γελασας κατεγνων αυτου, διοτι δεδασκαλος ειναι +λεγων ουν ηδει το διδασκομενον 'υπ' αυτου κρατυνειν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote467" name="footnote467"></a><b>Footnote 467:</b><a href="#footnotetag467"> (return) </a><p> +On the old "prophets and teachers" see my remarks on the Διδαχη, c. 11 ff., +and the section, pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The +διδασκαλοι αποστολικοι και προφητικοι (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) +became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote468" name="footnote468"></a><b>Footnote 468:</b><a href="#footnotetag468"> (return) </a><p> +In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness +of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in H. E. V. 7. In support of his own +writings, however, Irenæus appealed to no charisms.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote469" name="footnote469"></a><b>Footnote 469:</b><a href="#footnotetag469"> (return) </a><p>See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote470" name="footnote470"></a><b>Footnote 470:</b><a href="#footnotetag470"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote471" name="footnote471"></a><b>Footnote 471:</b><a href="#footnotetag471"> (return) </a><p> Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: "Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et +idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus +diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, +sed cum sua οικονομια esse credendum, expavescunt ad +οικονομιαν." Similar remarks +often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Noet 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote472" name="footnote472"></a><b>Footnote 472:</b><a href="#footnotetag472"> (return) </a><p> +The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively +emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist +and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but +obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject +speculations like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25. 3: "Si autem +et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est +in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum +æqualis vel similis sit factori"; II. 26. 1: Αμεινον και συμφορωτερον ιδιωτας και +ολιγομαθεις 'υπαρχειν, και δια της αγαπης πλησιον γενεσθαι του Θεου η πολυμαθεις +και εμπειρους δοκουντας ειναι, βλασφημους εις τον 'εαυτων 'ευρισκεσθαι δεσποτην, and +in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning the sphere within +which we are to search (the Holy Scriptures and "quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt", +much remains dark to us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the +canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in God +the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7: specification of the great +problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, +the relation of the Son to the Father, that is, the manner in which the Son was +begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to +the claim to absolute knowledge, <i>i.e.</i>, to the complete discovery of all the +processes +of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed +out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by Bible passages. But +the ground of these limits, "ex parte accepimus gratiam," is not an early-Christian +one, and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the +goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote473" name="footnote473"></a><b>Footnote 473:</b><a href="#footnotetag473"> (return) </a><p> The same observation applies to Tertullian, Cf. his point blank repudiation +of philosophy in de præse. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it +everywhere.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote474" name="footnote474"></a><b>Footnote 474:</b><a href="#footnotetag474"> (return) </a><p> In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic +position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack +of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour +of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot +agree with Zahn's judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): "Irenæus is the first +ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of +Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch +of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the +paths of this science."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote475" name="footnote475"></a><b>Footnote 475:</b><a href="#footnotetag475"> (return) </a><p> Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of +systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenæus. He did not reproduce +these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the +proof from prescription.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote476" name="footnote476"></a><b>Footnote 476:</b><a href="#footnotetag476"> (return) </a><p> +The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we +meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral +questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Tertullian's +dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, +he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote477" name="footnote477"></a><b>Footnote 477:</b><a href="#footnotetag477"> (return) </a><p> +With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted from +Irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature +of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he +was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of +the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the +limits of his interests and of his understanding.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote478" name="footnote478"></a><b>Footnote 478:</b><a href="#footnotetag478"> (return) </a><p> +Further references to Tertullian in a future volume. Tertullian is at the same +time the first Christian <i>individual</i> after Paul, of whose inward life and +peculiarities +we can form a picture to ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that +cannot be said of Irenæus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote479" name="footnote479"></a><b>Footnote 479:</b><a href="#footnotetag479"> (return) </a><p> +Consequently the <i>spirit</i> of Irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that +of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not +to be traced there.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote480" name="footnote480"></a><b>Footnote 480:</b><a href="#footnotetag480"> (return) </a><p> The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of +the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes the unity of nature, +morality, and revelation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote481" name="footnote481"></a><b>Footnote 481:</b><a href="#footnotetag481"> (return) </a><p> +What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost +completely unknown to us; but we are justified in saying that the five books "adv. +hæreses" of Irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of +this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on +Hippolytus, +Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, +and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, +we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work +was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The +insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the +enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive +examination of Loof: "The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus", in +the "Studies of Church History" dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic +works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, +Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just +as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin +against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism +to which Tatian's Christology was subjected by Arethas in the 10th century (Oratio 5; +see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment +passed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover +reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by +later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest +Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact +estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, +even including the great work of Irenæus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote482" name="footnote482"></a><b>Footnote 482:</b><a href="#footnotetag482"> (return) </a><p> People are fond of speaking of the "Asia Minor" theology of Irenæus, +ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from +these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: +John—Irenæus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the +Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and Gnosticism +and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be +urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives +countenance to the supposition that Irenæus learned more from him and his fellows +than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions +and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irenæus cannot be separated from the received +<i>canon</i> of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as +yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted important +lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second +century. +(4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to +Irenæus (and Melito?).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote483" name="footnote483"></a><b>Footnote 483:</b><a href="#footnotetag483"> (return) </a><p> +Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of +the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act +of grace.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote484" name="footnote484"></a><b>Footnote 484:</b><a href="#footnotetag484"> (return) </a><p> +See Molwitz, De Ανακεφαλαιωσεως in Irenæi theologia potestate, Dresden, 1874.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote485" name="footnote485"></a><b>Footnote 485:</b><a href="#footnotetag485"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans +and Galatians.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote486" name="footnote486"></a><b>Footnote 486:</b><a href="#footnotetag486"> (return) </a><p> +But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give +up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin's chief Antignostic +work.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote487" name="footnote487"></a><b>Footnote 487:</b><a href="#footnotetag487"> (return) </a><p> +According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the <i>status quo ante</i>, +according to that of Irenæus he first and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished +destination of humanity.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote488" name="footnote488"></a><b>Footnote 488:</b><a href="#footnotetag488"> (return) </a><p> +According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, <i>i.e.</i>, the +fall of <i>Sophia</i>, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to +Irenæus' idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the +Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus +himself did so in II. 20. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote489" name="footnote489"></a><b>Footnote 489:</b><a href="#footnotetag489"> (return) </a><p> +After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek +philosophers Irenæus continues § 7: "Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi +omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. "ye Gnostics +with the philosophers"), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem +cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege "ad") +quid enim descendebat?" It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is new +in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: +"Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?" See also lib. III. præf.: "veritas, hoc +est dei filii doctrina", III. 10. 3: "Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est +filii del agnitio ... agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et +salutare vere et dicitur et est." III. 11. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote490" name="footnote490"></a><b>Footnote 490:</b><a href="#footnotetag490"> (return) </a><p> See II. 24. 3, 4: "Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed +secundum gratiam dei datur." Cf. what follows. Irenæus has in various places +argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is <i>capax incorruptibilitatis</i>, and +likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man's destiny.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote491" name="footnote491"></a><b>Footnote 491:</b><a href="#footnotetag491"> (return) </a><p> Book V. pref.: "Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est +quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse": III. 6. I: "Deus stetit in +synagoga deorum ... de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: +hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei," etc.; see also what follows +III. 16. 3: "Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus +portante homine et capiente et compleciente filium dei." III. 16. 6: "Dei verbum +unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum +placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster ... +unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum +recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in +semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus +comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum +recapitulans ... in semetipsum primatum assumens,.. universa attrahat ad semetipsum +apto in tempore." III. 18. 1: "Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo +factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis +salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et +similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus." Cf. the whole 18th chapter +where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross +are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: +"Ηνωσεν ουν τον ανθρωπον τω Θεω. Ει γαρ μη ανθρωπος ενικησεν την αντιπαλον +του ανθρωπου, ουκ αν δικαιως ενικηθη 'ο εχθρος. Παλιν τε, ει μη 'ο Θεος εδωρησατο +την σωτηριαν, ουκ αν βεβαιως εσχομεν αυτην. Και ει μη συνηνωθη 'ο ανθρωπος τω Θεω, ουκ +αν ηδυνηθη μετασχειν της αφθαρσιας. Εδει γαρ τον μεσιτην Θεου τε και ανθρωπων +δια της ιδιας προς 'εκατερους οικειοτητος εις φιλιαν και 'ομονοιαν τους αμφοτερους +συναγωγειν; και Θεω μεν παραστησαι τον αντρωπον ανθρωποις δε γνωρισαι τον Θεον. +Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium +eam quæ est ad ipsura recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset +nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus +restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem." The Pauline ideas about sin, law, +and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The disquisitions in +capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenæus +turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, "perseverantes in servitute pristinæ +inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium +percipientes libertatem ... privantur munere eius, quod est vita æsterna: non recipientes +autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores +mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ? +narrans: Εγω ειπα, 'υιοι 'υψιστου εστε παντες και θεοι; 'υμεις δε 'ως ανθρωποι +αποθνησκετε. +Ταυτα λεγει προς τους μη δεξαμενους την δωρεαν της 'υιοθεσιας, αλλ' +ατιμαζοντας την σαρκωσιν της καθαρας γεννησεως του λογου του Θεου ... Εις τουτο +γαρ 'ο λογος ανθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, +'ινα 'ο ανθρωπος +τον λογον χωρησας και την 'υιοθεσιαν λαβων 'υιος γενηται Θεου. Non enim poteramus +aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et +immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, +nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorbet*etur +quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut +filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?" III. 21. 10: Ει τοινυν 'ο πρωτος Αδαμ εσχε +πατερα ανθρωπον και εκ σπερματος εγεννηθη, εικος ην και δευτερον Αδαμ λεγειν +εξ Ιωσηφ γεγεννησθαι. Ει δε εκεινος εκ γης εληφθη, πλαστης δε αυτου 'ο Θεος, εδει +και τον ανακεφαλαιουμενον εις αυτον 'υπο του Θεου πεπλασμενον ανθρωπον την αυτην +εκεινω της γεννησεως εχειν 'ομοιοτητα. Εις τι ουν παλιν ουκ ελαβε χουν 'ο Θεος, αλλ' +εκ Μαριας ενηργησε την πλασιν γενεσθαι. 'Ινα μη αλλη πλασις γενηται μηδε αλλο +το σωζομενον η, αλλ' αυτος εκεινος ανακεφαλαιωθη τηρουμενης της 'ομοιοτητος; III. +23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought +Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the +disquisitions +regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatian's views, in III. 23). But +he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history, +of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view +the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ +(See II. 20. 3: "dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque +exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et +ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit"; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many +other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having performed a <i>work</i>. Secondly, +alongside of the deification of Adam's children, viewed as a mechanical result of +the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the +teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, <i>i.e.</i>, strengthened the +freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with God) +therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge +the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: +"Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum +exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alias poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt +patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum ... Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, +nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, +ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus +cum ipso", and many other passages). We find a combined formula in III. 5. 3: +"Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote492" name="footnote492"></a><b>Footnote 492:</b><a href="#footnotetag492"> (return) </a><p>Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote493" name="footnote493"></a><b>Footnote 493:</b><a href="#footnotetag493"> (return) </a><p> Melito's teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him +(see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression +"'αι δυο ουσιαι Χριστου". The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, +but, +as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not +found in Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) +shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote494" name="footnote494"></a><b>Footnote 494:</b><a href="#footnotetag494"> (return) </a><p> The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of God +and the corresponding idea of "several covenants" (I. 10. 3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) +denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the +controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the +origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote495" name="footnote495"></a><b>Footnote 495:</b><a href="#footnotetag495"> (return) </a><p> It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were +according to Irenæus simply related as the "is" and the "why." As a matter of +fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship +thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of +the reason and aim of God's ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge +are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely sought +for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it in his way. The +truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an +exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the +transformation of that faith into a monistic speculation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote496" name="footnote496"></a><b>Footnote 496:</b><a href="#footnotetag496"> (return) </a><p> +See 1. 10. 2: Και ουτε 'ο πανυ δυνατος εν λογω των εν ταις εκκλησιαις +προεστωτων +τουτων (scil. than the regula sidei) επει ουδεις γαρ υπερ τον διδασκαλον +ουτε 'ο ασθενης εν τω λογω ελαττωσει την παραδοσιν. Μιας γαρ και της αυτης πιστεως +ουσης ουτε 'ο πολυ περι αυτης δυναμενος ειπειν επλεονασεν, ουτε 'ο το ολιγον +ηλαττονησε.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote497" name="footnote497"></a><b>Footnote 497:</b><a href="#footnotetag497"> (return) </a><p> See Bohringer's careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian +(Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, +2nd half, pp. 484-739).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote498" name="footnote498"></a><b>Footnote 498:</b><a href="#footnotetag498"> (return) </a><p> +To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty +and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that +Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. +de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. +On Irenæus' criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, +Leipzig, 1891. p. 8 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote499" name="footnote499"></a><b>Footnote 499:</b><a href="#footnotetag499"> (return) </a><p> +See Irenæus II. 1. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian +proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar +Deities; see also I. 15.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote500" name="footnote500"></a><b>Footnote 500:</b><a href="#footnotetag500"> (return) </a><p> +See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the +æons of Ptolemy as "personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus +in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote501" name="footnote501"></a><b>Footnote 501:</b><a href="#footnotetag501"> (return) </a><p> See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. +in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with +more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance +of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally +raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later +times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. "Quæritur quemadmodum emissi +sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an +efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem +habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo ... Aut secundum germinationem, quemabmodum +ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se +emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem +emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi?... Et utrum simplices quidam et +uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina +emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes"? See also II. 17. 4: "Si autem velut a +lumine lumina accensa sunt... velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione +quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantive cum +sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et +pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, +alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit." Here we have already a +statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian +doctrine.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote502" name="footnote502"></a><b>Footnote 502:</b><a href="#footnotetag502"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote503" name="footnote503"></a><b>Footnote 503:</b><a href="#footnotetag503"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. II. 4. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote504" name="footnote504"></a><b>Footnote 504:</b><a href="#footnotetag504"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every +God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion's +rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all +religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at +the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, <i>i.e.</i>, of +the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the +cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the +idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme +Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, +that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that +our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with +rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable +(II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see +Tertull., adv. Hermog.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote505" name="footnote505"></a><b>Footnote 505:</b><a href="#footnotetag505"> (return) </a><p> But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in +the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. +On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, +Vol. VII., p. 113 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote506" name="footnote506"></a><b>Footnote 506:</b><a href="#footnotetag506"> (return) </a><p> +See his arguments that the Gnostics merely <i>assert</i> that they have only one +Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote507" name="footnote507"></a><b>Footnote 507:</b><a href="#footnotetag507"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote508" name="footnote508"></a><b>Footnote 508:</b><a href="#footnotetag508"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. 1.; Orig. Comm. +in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655: Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., +p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote509" name="footnote509"></a><b>Footnote 509:</b><a href="#footnotetag509"> (return) </a><p> +For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, +see de præscr. 16-19: "Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum +certamen, in quibus aut milla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote510" name="footnote510"></a><b>Footnote 510:</b><a href="#footnotetag510"> (return) </a><p>See Iren., III. 5. 1: III. 12. 6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote511" name="footnote511"></a><b>Footnote 511:</b><a href="#footnotetag511"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: "Scripturæ quidem +perfectæ sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod +minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia +niysteriorum eius indigenus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote512" name="footnote512"></a><b>Footnote 512:</b><a href="#footnotetag512"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the +translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different +kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the +critical views of the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The +Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote513" name="footnote513"></a><b>Footnote 513:</b><a href="#footnotetag513"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote514" name="footnote514"></a><b>Footnote 514:</b><a href="#footnotetag514"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. II. 25. I.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote515" name="footnote515"></a><b>Footnote 515:</b><a href="#footnotetag515"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says +(IV. 31. 1): "De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas +et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis ... de quibus autem scripturæ non +inciepant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt positæ, nos non debere fieri accusatores, +sed typum quærere."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote516" name="footnote516"></a><b>Footnote 516:</b><a href="#footnotetag516"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained +to be Father, Son. and Spirit.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote517" name="footnote517"></a><b>Footnote 517:</b><a href="#footnotetag517"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. IV. 22. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote518" name="footnote518"></a><b>Footnote 518:</b><a href="#footnotetag518"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. III. 17. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote519" name="footnote519"></a><b>Footnote 519:</b><a href="#footnotetag519"> (return) </a><p> +Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished +from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two <i>proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ</i> +in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind +of complete theories of inspiration.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote520" name="footnote520"></a><b>Footnote 520:</b><a href="#footnotetag520"> (return) </a><p>See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote521" name="footnote521"></a><b>Footnote 521:</b><a href="#footnotetag521"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren, II. 26. 1, 13. 4: "Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium +pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, +sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem." Irenæus expressly says that +God cannot be known as regards his greatness, <i>i.e.</i> absolutely, but that he can be +known as regards his love, IV. 20. 1: "Igitur secundum magnitudem non est +cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem +eius—hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum—obedientes +ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc."; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of +God "secundum dilectionem" is more closely defined by the words "per verbum +eius Iesum Christum." The statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: +they who are pure in heart will see God. God's omnipotence and goodness +remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, +in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state +of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: 'ωσπερ 'οι βλεποντες το +φως εντος εισι του φωτος και της λαμπροτητος αυτου μετεχουσιν, 'ουτως 'οι βλεποντες +τον Θεον εντος εισι του Θεου, μετεχοντες αυτου της λαμπροτητος. Και δια +τουτο 'ο αχωρητος και ακαταληπτος και αορατος 'ορωμενον 'εαυτον ... τοις πιστοις +παρεσχεν, 'ινα ζωοποιηση τους χωρουντας και βλεποντας αυτον δια πιστεως. See +also what follows down to the words: μετοχη Θεου εστι το γινωσκειν Θεον και +απολαυειν της χρηστοτητος αυτου, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per +visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind +where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote522" name="footnote522"></a><b>Footnote 522:</b><a href="#footnotetag522"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Εδιδαξεν 'ημας 'ο κυριος, 'οτι Θεον ειδεναι ουδεις δυναται, +μη +ουχι Θεου διδαξαντος, τουτεστιν, ανευ Θεου μη γινωσκεσθαι τον Θεον; αυτο δε το +γινωσκεσθαι τον Θεον θελημα ειναι του πατρος, Γνωσονται γαρ αυτον 'οις αν αποκαλυψη +'ο 'υιος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote523" name="footnote523"></a><b>Footnote 523:</b><a href="#footnotetag523"> (return) </a><p> +Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: "Providentiam habet deus omnium propter +hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam +habent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum +directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem +perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris +ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti +sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicererit fabricatorem +huiuss universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum." +Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote524" name="footnote524"></a><b>Footnote 524:</b><a href="#footnotetag524"> (return) </a><p>See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote525" name="footnote525"></a><b>Footnote 525:</b><a href="#footnotetag525"> (return) </a><p>See Iren., V. 26. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote526" name="footnote526"></a><b>Footnote 526:</b><a href="#footnotetag526"> (return) </a><p>See Iren., II. 1. I and the Hymn II. 30. 9.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote527" name="footnote527"></a><b>Footnote 527:</b><a href="#footnotetag527"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus' utterances in II. 34. 4 and +II. 30. 9: "Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua +autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita" ... "substantia +omnium voluntas dei;" see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. +Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical +contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved +from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds, good: "ex una substantia esse +omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote528" name="footnote528"></a><b>Footnote 528:</b><a href="#footnotetag528"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote529" name="footnote529"></a><b>Footnote 529:</b><a href="#footnotetag529"> (return) </a><p> +Tertullian also makes the same demand (<i>e.g.</i> adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion +"deum corpus esse" (adv. Prax. 7: "Quis enim negabil, deum corpus esse, +etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie") must be +compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the +proposition formulated in de carne 11: "omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil +est incorporale, nisi quod non est." Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic +philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a +human form, since he recognised that man's likeness to God consists merely in +his spiritual qualities. On the contrary <i>Melito</i> ascribed to God a corporeal +existence +of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title "'ο περι +ενσωματου Θεου λογος,") and Origen reckoned him among the teachers who recognised +that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen +I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological +ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had +a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas +and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius +(<i>Instit. div.</i> VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote530" name="footnote530"></a><b>Footnote 530:</b><a href="#footnotetag530"> (return) </a><p> See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus +briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the +Apologists' idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God's +attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now +much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose +in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment of Irenæus +(Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: "Summa est voluntatis dei salus +eorum, quos adoptavit"; de paenit. 2: "Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum"; +adv. Marc. II. 27: "Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis." They had here +undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the +work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord's Prayer, he succeeded +in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for +him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen's work de orat., and, in +general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord's Prayer in the +succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning +of the Gospel.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote531" name="footnote531"></a><b>Footnote 531:</b><a href="#footnotetag531"> (return) </a><p> Apol. 21: "Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo ... Jam ediximus deum +universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque +sapientes Λογον, id est sermonem et rationem, constat artificem videri +universitatis." +(An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). "Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi +itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum +inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus +præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco +filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that +is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, +portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separatur substantia +sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de +lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces +qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus +ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu +non statu fecit, et a matrice non necessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro +semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus +nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, +operatur et Christus est." Tertullian adds: "Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis +est vestris." As a matter of fact the heathen must have viewed this statement as +a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive +to ascertain that in Hippolytus' book against Noëtus "the setting forth of the truth" +(c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεος εβουληθη κοσμον κτισαι. +The Logos +whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote532" name="footnote532"></a><b>Footnote 532:</b><a href="#footnotetag532"> (return) </a><p>See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote533" name="footnote533"></a><b>Footnote 533:</b><a href="#footnotetag533"> (return) </a><p> +See my detailed exposition of the <i>orthodox</i> side of Tertullian's doctrine of the +Trinity ("orthodox" in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also +shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian's <i>juristic</i> bias. The formulæ, +"una <i>substantia</i>, tres <i>personæ</i>", never alternates in his case with the +others, "una +<i>natura</i>, tres <i>personæ</i>"; and so it remained for a long time in the West; +they did not +speak of "natures" but of "substances" ("nature" in this connection is very rare +down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian +always uses "substance" in the concrete sense "individual substance" and has even +expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: "aliud est +substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, +natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; +duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantiæ est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia +discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non +pariant ... Et tune naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. +Men and animals are similar <i>natura</i>, but not <i>substantia</i>." We see that +Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance +expressed their <i>unity</i> as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the +majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the Father, who is the <i>tota +substantia</i>, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of +the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept "person" aided in the +matter here.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote534" name="footnote534"></a><b>Footnote 534:</b><a href="#footnotetag534"> (return) </a><p> +See adv. Prax. 3: "Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus +angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant +ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat +monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem +et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium +sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum +numero?" (!!) c. 4: "Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud +filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a +filio." L.c.: "Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote535" name="footnote535"></a><b>Footnote 535:</b><a href="#footnotetag535"> (return) </a><p> +See Hippol., c. Noetum II. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently +preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) +if there is one possessor of the whole substance, <i>i.e.</i>, if everything proceeds from +him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote536" name="footnote536"></a><b>Footnote 536:</b><a href="#footnotetag536"> (return) </a><p> +Adv. Prax. 8: "Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολην aliquam introducere id est +prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, +non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis +utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret"; +cf. also what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already: "The economy +is founded on as many names as God willed" (c. 4).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote537" name="footnote537"></a><b>Footnote 537:</b><a href="#footnotetag537"> (return) </a><p>See adv. Prax. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote538" name="footnote538"></a><b>Footnote 538:</b><a href="#footnotetag538"> (return) </a><p>Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: "fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote539" name="footnote539"></a><b>Footnote 539:</b><a href="#footnotetag539"> (return) </a><p> +Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between "factum esse" and +"procedere".</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote540" name="footnote540"></a><b>Footnote 540:</b><a href="#footnotetag540"> (return) </a><p> +Adv. Prax. 2: "Custodiatur οικονομιας sacramentum, quæ unitatem in trinitatem +disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, +nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote541" name="footnote541"></a><b>Footnote 541:</b><a href="#footnotetag541"> (return) </a><p>See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote542" name="footnote542"></a><b>Footnote 542:</b><a href="#footnotetag542"> (return) </a><p> +Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: "filius portio plenitudinis." In another passage +Tertullian has ironically remarked in opposition to Marcion (IV. 39): "Nisi Marcion +Christum non subiectum patri infert."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote543" name="footnote543"></a><b>Footnote 543:</b><a href="#footnotetag543"> (return) </a><p>Adv. Prax. 9.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote544" name="footnote544"></a><b>Footnote 544:</b><a href="#footnotetag544"> (return) </a><p> See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: "I am ergo alius +erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens +erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem +vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis." One cannot look at the sun itself, +but, "toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur." +The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given +an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as +making himself visible. Adv. Marc. II. 27: "Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur +in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum +deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito +et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in +virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo +detrahit." In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father +is by nature impassible, but the Son is capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not +share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise +απαθης (see c. Noetum 15).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote545" name="footnote545"></a><b>Footnote 545:</b><a href="#footnotetag545"> (return) </a><p> +According to Tertullian it is certainly an <i>essential part of the Son's nature</i> to +appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted +the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor +can this view be inferred from his premises.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote546" name="footnote546"></a><b>Footnote 546:</b><a href="#footnotetag546"> (return) </a><p> +See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is +derived from 1 Cor. XV.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote547" name="footnote547"></a><b>Footnote 547:</b><a href="#footnotetag547"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is +conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of +the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.-V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary +notion μερισμος in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. +Plotinus +would have agreed with Tertullian's proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: "Dei nomen +quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur." +Plotinus' idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact +examination.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote548" name="footnote548"></a><b>Footnote 548:</b><a href="#footnotetag548"> (return) </a><p> +Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost +according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent +interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own +"numerus"—"tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis",—and he is a person +in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination +is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: "tertius est spiritus +a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a +flumine +et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates +suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ +nihil obstrepit et οικονομιας statum protegit"; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 +the Spirit in relation to the Son is called "vicaria vis". The element of personality +in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see +his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the +Spirit, for he says (adv. Noet. 14): +'Ενα Θεον ερω, προσωπα δε δυο, οικονομια δε τριτην +την χαριν του 'αγιου πνευματος; πατηρ μεν γαρ εις, προσωπα δε δυο, 'οτι και 'ο 'υιος, +το δε τριτον το 'αγιον πνευμα. In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis +he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: +Ει γαρ Θεον σε ηθελησε +ποιησαι 'ο Θεος, εδυνατο; εχεις του λογου το παραδειγμα) he quite agrees with +Tertullian. +See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth "ενδιαθετος +του παντος λογισμος"; he is produced εκ των οντων, <i>i.e.</i>, from the +Father who +then alone existed; his essence is "that he bears in himself the will of him who +has begotten him" or "that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived +by and resting in the Father." Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion +to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: +"Christus deus et homo", and to the Biblical expressions which were understood +in the sense of divinity and preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was +still quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the +Holy Ghost not as a person but as "sanctificatio" proceeding from the Father or +from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work <i>de trinitate</i> reproduced +Tertullian's views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, +Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy +that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ <i>dei spiritus</i>; +see de +oral. I: "Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et +spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus." Apol. 21: adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, +16: IV. 21.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote549" name="footnote549"></a><b>Footnote 549:</b><a href="#footnotetag549"> (return) </a><p> See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenaus +Christologie, 1843.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote550" name="footnote550"></a><b>Footnote 550:</b><a href="#footnotetag550"> (return) </a><p>Zahn, l.c., p. 238.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote551" name="footnote551"></a><b>Footnote 551:</b><a href="#footnotetag551"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important +passage II. 29. 3 fin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote552" name="footnote552"></a><b>Footnote 552:</b><a href="#footnotetag552"> (return) </a><p> A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the +Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic +ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the +Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the +distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote553" name="footnote553"></a><b>Footnote 553:</b><a href="#footnotetag553"> (return) </a><p> The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as +regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: "agnitio +patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata"): IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: +IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always +remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel +world, see II. 30. 9: "semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper +revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus +vult revelari deus;" he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: +"non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem"; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: +II. 25. 3: "non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut +proprium eius verbum." The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, +in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, +we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: "fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, +hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam," or hymnlike statements such as +III. 16. 6: "et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis +factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum +homo" (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, +p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: "filius est in patre et habet in se +patrem," III. 6. 1.: "utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur +filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem." He not only says that the Son has revealed +the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies +Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some +cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son ("pater generis humani verbum +dei", IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient "immensum +patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit +eum." This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather +to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient +tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational +system.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote554" name="footnote554"></a><b>Footnote 554:</b><a href="#footnotetag554"> (return) </a><p> Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. 10: IV. 20): also IV. 6. 6: +"Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius." Judging from this passage, it is +always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged +to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son +was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary +see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: "verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile"). +But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus +hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 +(the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father +is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son <i>receives</i> from the Father the +sovereignty); +IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as +his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself); +V. 18. 21, 3 ("pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans"—"verbum portatum +a patre"—"et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et +in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi"—"verbum universorum +potestatem habet a patre"). "This is not a subordination founded on the nature +of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically," says Zahn +(l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. +We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus +because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a +theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern +as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote555" name="footnote555"></a><b>Footnote 555:</b><a href="#footnotetag555"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God +refers to mankind, see, <i>e.g.</i>, I. 10. 3: +εκδιηγεισθαι την πραγματειαν και οικονομιαν +του Θεου την επι τη ανθρωποτητι γενομενην, IV, 20. 7: "Verbum dispensator paternæ +gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones." +God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in +IV. 20. 7: "Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei," or III. 20. 2: +"Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientias eius et virtutis +receptaculum +homo." V. 29. 1: "Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est +propter hominem."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote556" name="footnote556"></a><b>Footnote 556:</b><a href="#footnotetag556"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he +firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of +the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, +and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found +in the <i>regula</i>. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are +everywhere +applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was any +creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to +the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, +20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from +IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the +parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to +Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in +the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, +the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded +to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit +is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with +God in V. I. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But +not only does the function of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly +in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament +to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon +Mary—where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into +the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes +with him, <i>e.g.</i>, in III. 18. 3: "unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, +qui est spiritus" (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. +pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and +Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he +never uses the formula τριας, to say nothing of the abstract formulas of +Tertullian. +In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which +is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God +has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then +adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom +of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the +Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts +the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the +Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son +will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable +that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 +that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the +equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of +Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several +disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in +IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the +Spirit: Και δια τουτο Παυλος Κορινθιοις φησι: γαλα 'υμας εποτισα, ου Βρωμα, ουδε +γαρ ηδυνασθε βασταζειν; τουτεστι, την μεν κατα ανθρωπον παρουσιαν του κυριου +εμαθητευθητε, ουδηπου δε το του πατρος πνευμα επαναπαυεται εφ' 'υμας δια την +'υμων ασθενειαν. Here one of Origen's thoughts appears.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote557" name="footnote557"></a><b>Footnote 557:</b><a href="#footnotetag557"> (return) </a><p> The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about +redemption. Noldechen (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): +"Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote558" name="footnote558"></a><b>Footnote 558:</b><a href="#footnotetag558"> (return) </a><p> +Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following +sentences are perhaps the most important: Ει δε λεγει τις ουκ ηδυνατο 'ο Θεος απ' +αρχης τελειον αναδειξαι τον ανθρωπον, Γνωτω, 'οτι τω μεν Θεω, αει κατα τα αυτα +οντι και αγεννητω 'υπαρχοντι, 'ως προς 'εαυτον, παντα δυνατα; τα δε γεγοντα, καθο +μετεπειτα γενεσεως αρχην ιδιαν εσχε, κατα τουτο και 'υστερεισθαι δει αυτα του +πεποιηκοτος; ου γαρ ηδυναντο αγεννητα ειναι τα νεωστι γεγεννημενα. Καθο δε μη +εστιν αγεννητα, κατα τουτο και 'υστερουνται του τελειου. Καθο δε νεωτερα, κατα +τουτο και νηπια, κατα τουτο και ασυνηθη και αγυμναστα προς την τελειαν αγωγην. +The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but +the child cannot stand it: +ανθρωπος αδυνατος λαβειν αυτο; νηπιος γαρ ην, see also +§ 2-4: "Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum +dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum +putet invidiosum aut impræstantem." "Ego," inquit, "dixi, dii estis et filii excelsi +omnes, nobis autem potestatem divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus" ... "Oportuerat +autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate +et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem +dei, agnitione accepta boni et mali." Ibid.: 'υποταγη Θεου απθαρσια, και +παραμονη απθαρσιας δοξα αγεννητος ... 'ορασις Θεου περιποιητικη απθαρσιας; απθαρσια +δε εγγυς ειναι ποιει Θεου. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of +appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιαζειν. His +conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas +about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants +(see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this +way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the <i>destination</i> +of man—which was finally to be reached through divine guidance—but not as his +<i>nature</i>, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between "natura" +and "gratia" or between "substantia" and "fides et iustitia." In other words, +they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long +before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: +"Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est +credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam +non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ ... Si enim natura et +substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc." II. 34. 3: +"Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei +datur," II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: "Christi nomen non ex natura +veniens, sed ex dispositione." In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed +to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means +been made clear.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote559" name="footnote559"></a><b>Footnote 559:</b><a href="#footnotetag559"> (return) </a><p> On the psychology of Irenæus see Bohringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The +fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνευμα in man as the latter's +inalienable +nature (<i>e.g.</i> II. 33-5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the +divine +Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εικων is realised in the +body, +the 'ομοιωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the +Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The 'ομοιωσις is therefore +subject +to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where +he opposes Tatian's opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only +the πνοη, not the πνευμα, that is to be conceived as an original +possession. On +this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter +of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on +man's inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God's goodness has scope for displaying +itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man's +knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: "veterem +legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem +suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non +coactum a deo ... posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis +(et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, +<i>datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis</i>." An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) +follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural +goodness and wickedness: παντες της αυτης εισι φυσεως. In § 4 he interprets the +Pauline: "omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt," as referring to man's inalienable +freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil(!): "liberæ +sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem +factus est." § 5: "Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ +potestatis arbitrium hominis <i>servavit</i> (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: +Secundum +fidem tuam fiat tibi." § 4: "deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur +ex obedientia." § 3: "το αυτεξουσιον του ανθρωπου και το συμβουλευτικον του Θεου +μη βιαζομενου." IV. 4. 3: "homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in +arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum +aliquando autem palea fiat."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote560" name="footnote560"></a><b>Footnote 560:</b><a href="#footnotetag560"> (return) </a><p> +As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; +see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular +individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back +to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: "Quicunque erga eum custodiunt +dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen +et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum +sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio +autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ +sunt apud eum bonorum." V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very +clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: "Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine +semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam +non obedierunt, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote561" name="footnote561"></a><b>Footnote 561:</b><a href="#footnotetag561"> (return) </a><p> Man's sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact +that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for +him; man was <i>infans</i>, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics, +in IV. 38. 4: "supergredieutes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, +iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc +facti hominis." The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; +"quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?" <i>i.e.</i>, how +could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch +as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: "The +fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to +repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent" ... "eum odivit deus, qui +seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est." The +"pondus peccati" in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by +Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as +have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul's view.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote562" name="footnote562"></a><b>Footnote 562:</b><a href="#footnotetag562"> (return) </a><p> See IV. 37. 7: "Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset +inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus +quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia +honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste +regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum." The main passage is III. +20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man +might not believe that he was "naturaliter similis deo." Hence God permitted the +great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated +the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, <i>e.g.</i>, IV. +39. 1, 37. 7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote563" name="footnote563"></a><b>Footnote 563:</b><a href="#footnotetag563"> (return) </a><p>See Wendt, l.c., p. 24.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote564" name="footnote564"></a><b>Footnote 564:</b><a href="#footnotetag564"> (return) </a><p>See III. 23. 6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote565" name="footnote565"></a><b>Footnote 565:</b><a href="#footnotetag565"> (return) </a><p> See V. I. 1: "Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi +magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset ... Neque rursus nos aliter +discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes," etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: "libertatem +restauravit"; IV. 24. 1: "reformavit humamum genus"; III. 17. 1: "spiritus +sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare +in genere humano." III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt's summary, l.c., p. 24: +"By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance," +formulates Irenæus' meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he +viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood +is not necessary within this train of thought; only a <i>homo inspiratus</i> is required.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote566" name="footnote566"></a><b>Footnote 566:</b><a href="#footnotetag566"> (return) </a><p> +See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Επι τουτοις τον παντων αρχοντα δημιουργων +εκ πασων συνθετων ουσιων εσκευασεν, ου Θεων θελων ποιειν εσφηλεν, ουδε +αγγελον, αλλ' ανθρωπον. Ει γαρ Θεον σε ηθελησε ποιησαι, εδυνατο; εχεις του λογου +το παραδειγμα; ανθρωπον θελων, ανθρωπον σε εποιησεν; ει δε θελεις και Θεος γενεσθαι, +'υπακουε τω πεποιηκοτι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena +with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote567" name="footnote567"></a><b>Footnote 567:</b><a href="#footnotetag567"> (return) </a><p> +See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular +clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 +that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into +the Church. This is contrary to Wendt's opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition +of Tertullian is <i>speciosior quam verior</i>. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to +see the first traces of the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 +the germ of the subsequent Protestant view.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote568" name="footnote568"></a><b>Footnote 568:</b><a href="#footnotetag568"> (return) </a><p>See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote569" name="footnote569"></a><b>Footnote 569:</b><a href="#footnotetag569"> (return) </a><p> See IV 14. 1: "In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget +dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute." +This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of +the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus' great +work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear +the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: 'υποταγη Θεου αφθαρσια.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote570" name="footnote570"></a><b>Footnote 570:</b><a href="#footnotetag570"> (return) </a><p>See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote571" name="footnote571"></a><b>Footnote 571:</b><a href="#footnotetag571"> (return) </a><p> +See III. 18. 1. V. 16. 1 is very remarkable: Εν τοις προσθεν χρονοις ελεγετο +μεν κατ' εικονα Θεου γεγονεναι τον ανθρωπον, ουκ εδεικνυτο δε, ετι γαρ αορατος ην +'ο λογος, ου κατ' εικονα 'ο ανθρωπος εγεγονει. δια τουτο δη και την 'ομοιωσιν ιαδιως +απεβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. I. 1 Irenæus even says: "Quoniam iniuste +dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos +contra naturam diabolus." Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: +"oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere" etc. (see above, p. 268), where <i>natura +hominis</i> is conceived as the opposite of the divine nature.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote572" name="footnote572"></a><b>Footnote 572:</b><a href="#footnotetag572"> (return) </a><p> +See Wendt, l.c., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought +in Irenæus with regard to man's original state, Duncker having already done so in +regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and +not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, +the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that +Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic +by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from +the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a +rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the +contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote573" name="footnote573"></a><b>Footnote 573:</b><a href="#footnotetag573"> (return) </a><p> +See V. 16. 3: εν τω πρωτω Αδαμ προσεκοψαμεν, μη ποιησαντες αυτου την +εντολην. IV. 34. 2: "homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;" +III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote574" name="footnote574"></a><b>Footnote 574:</b><a href="#footnotetag574"> (return) </a><p> +Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential +ideas. Bohringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: "We cannot say that +Irenæus, in making Adam's conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race +had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling +of the need of salvation founded on this." It is the thoughts of Paul to which +Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about +the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is +rudimentary (but see, <i>e.g.</i> de anima 40: "ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam +censetur donec in Christo recenseatur," and other passages); but he has speculations +about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the +index in Oehler's edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint of +sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine +of original sin (de testim. 3: "per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut +præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo +semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit." Compare his teachings in +de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated "ex originis vitio" +and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin +as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: "Quaie innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum." +For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness +and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat +of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in +this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This +was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through "philosophy" +and of emasculating the understanding through "revelation." In regard to +the conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed +like an utterance of Irenæus ("dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera"); +but the statement in ep. 64. 5: "Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum +Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ prima nativitate contraxit" is +quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed +with the continuation: "infanti remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata." Tertullian's +proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained +without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, <i>e.g.</i>, de op. et eleem. 3).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote575" name="footnote575"></a><b>Footnote 575:</b><a href="#footnotetag575"> (return) </a><p> III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound ... "eam quæ est a Maria in Evam +recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ +compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per +secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a +secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere +locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos +primos." Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly +says (V. 12. 3): Εν τω Αδαμ παντες αποθνησκομεν, 'οτι ψυχικοι. But Paul, too, +made an approach to this thought.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote576" name="footnote576"></a><b>Footnote 576:</b><a href="#footnotetag576"> (return) </a><p>See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote577" name="footnote577"></a><b>Footnote 577:</b><a href="#footnotetag577"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, III. 9. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: "verbum dei, +per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote578" name="footnote578"></a><b>Footnote 578:</b><a href="#footnotetag578"> (return) </a><p>See IV. 6. 7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote579" name="footnote579"></a><b>Footnote 579:</b><a href="#footnotetag579"> (return) </a><p>See III. 11. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote580" name="footnote580"></a><b>Footnote 580:</b><a href="#footnotetag580"> (return) </a><p>See III. 6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote581" name="footnote581"></a><b>Footnote 581:</b><a href="#footnotetag581"> (return) </a><p> See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3; see also Tertullian against "Ebion" +de carne 14, 18, 24; de præser. 10. 33.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote582" name="footnote582"></a><b>Footnote 582:</b><a href="#footnotetag582"> (return) </a><p>See III. 21, 22: V. 19-21.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote583" name="footnote583"></a><b>Footnote 583:</b><a href="#footnotetag583"> (return) </a><p> +See the arguments, l.c., V. 19. 1: "Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum +per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia +per virginalem obedientiam," and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., +de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions +with regard to Mary (see, <i>e.g.</i> Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: "uti virgo esset regeneratio +nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum." Iren. III. +21. 7: "Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);" III. 22. 4 "Maria obediens et sibi et +universo generi humano causa facta est salutis" ... "quod alligavit virgo Eva per +incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem"). These, however, have no doctrinal +significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way +about Mary in <i>de carne</i> 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later +Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic +invention of the <i>virginitas Mariæ in partu</i> can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. +21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as +yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular +conception as to the reason of Christ's birth from a virgin, in the form still current +to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian <i>de carne</i> 18: "Non +competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non +esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione +credendus erat Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et +hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis carne sumenda sine viri semine. +Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen." The other theory existing +side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been +begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so +far as I know scarcely hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ's +birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ's kinship to +God the Creator, <i>e.g.</i>, adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the <i>regula +fidei</i> +received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of +the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise <i>de resurr.</i> bearing Justin's +name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote584" name="footnote584"></a><b>Footnote 584:</b><a href="#footnotetag584"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. +276.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote585" name="footnote585"></a><b>Footnote 585:</b><a href="#footnotetag585"> (return) </a><p> So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is +destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work <i>de carne Christi</i>. Tertullian exclaims to the +Docetist Marcion in c. 5: "Parce unicæ spei totius orbis." Irenæus and Tertullian +mean that Christ's assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently +express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos +only assumed flesh. This is particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, +in his earlier time had probably quite naive Docetic ideas and really looked upon +the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: "spiritum Christus cum +verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnincis officio." Yet Irenæus in several passages +spoke of Christ's human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1. 1) as also did Melito +(το αληθες και +αφανταστον της ψυχης Χριστου και του σωματος, της καθ' 'ημας ανθρωπινης φυσεως +Otto, l.c., IX., p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we +possess in virtue of the creation was <i>assumed</i> by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) +Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to +the flesh of Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the +Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in +himself, he shows that the Saviour's flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible +to teach the annihilation of Christ's flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): +"Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made +it sinless." It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that +gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with +the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks +(de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of +God came to die.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote586" name="footnote586"></a><b>Footnote 586:</b><a href="#footnotetag586"> (return) </a><p> +This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated +in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the +necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. +Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted +(very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus +was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, +the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the +personal humanity of Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote587" name="footnote587"></a><b>Footnote 587:</b><a href="#footnotetag587"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren. V. 31. 2: "Surgens in carne sic ascendit ad patrem." Tertullian, de +carne 24: "Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus ... et agnoscent qui +eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nee ipse esse +poterit et agnosci;" see also what follows.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote588" name="footnote588"></a><b>Footnote 588:</b><a href="#footnotetag588"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. IV. 33. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote589" name="footnote589"></a><b>Footnote 589:</b><a href="#footnotetag589"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote590" name="footnote590"></a><b>Footnote 590:</b><a href="#footnotetag590"> (return) </a><p> +He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. +See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. "Verbum unigenitus, qui +semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum +patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro +nobis et ressurrexit propter nos.... Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, +et unus Christus Iesus domiuns noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia +in semelipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio del, et hominem +ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis +factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo." V. 18. 1: "Ipsum +verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote591" name="footnote591"></a><b>Footnote 591:</b><a href="#footnotetag591"> (return) </a><p> Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula "God has suffered" and the +like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: 'ο Θεος πεπονυεν 'υπο δεξιας +Ισραηλιτιδος (p. 422): "Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus +est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, +incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque +ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert." +But let us note that these are not "doctrines," but testimonies to the faith, as they +were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted +to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally +admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that +Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but +showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his +ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus' divinity and humanity +are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against the +"Gnostic" separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most +weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: "Iesu generatio sic erat" +but "Christi generatio sic erat"), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself +could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying +to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he +actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour's +person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in +the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he +and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple "filius dei filius hominis factus" and +did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world +and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this +very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only +by the proposition (p. 419): "Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore +(this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, +utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius +quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret," but also by the "propter hominem +iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?" (l.c.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote592" name="footnote592"></a><b>Footnote 592:</b><a href="#footnotetag592"> (return) </a><p> +The concepts employed by Irenæus are <i>deus</i>, <i>verbum</i>, <i>filius dei</i>, +<i>homo</i>, <i>filius +hominis</i>, <i>plasma dei</i>. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in +his case was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the +<i>plasma dei</i>, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation +theory) +not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human +life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, +του Θεου λογου 'ενωοει τη καθ' 'υποστασιν φυσικη 'ενωθεντος τη σακρι, +is by no means +genuine. How we are to understand the words: 'ινα εξ αμφοτερων το +περιφανες των +φυσεων παραδειχθη in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece +belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the +fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito +was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, +whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see +my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine +Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote593" name="footnote593"></a><b>Footnote 593:</b><a href="#footnotetag593"> (return) </a><p> +See Apol. 21: "verbum caro figuratus ... homo deo mixtus;" adv. Marc. II. 27: +"filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;" de carne 15: "homo deo +mixtus;" 18: "sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei." On the +Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote594" name="footnote594"></a><b>Footnote 594:</b><a href="#footnotetag594"> (return) </a><p> +De carne 5: "Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus +est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum +est, quia impossible est;" but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: "deus crucifixus," +"nasci se voluit deus". De pat. 3: "nasci se deus in utero patitur." The +formula: 'ο γεννηθεις, 'ο μεγας Θεος is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote595" name="footnote595"></a><b>Footnote 595:</b><a href="#footnotetag595"> (return) </a><p> +De carne I, cf. ad nat. II. 4: "ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione +substantiæ."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote596" name="footnote596"></a><b>Footnote 596:</b><a href="#footnotetag596"> (return) </a><p>De carne 18 fin.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote597" name="footnote597"></a><b>Footnote 597:</b><a href="#footnotetag597"> (return) </a><p> Adv. Prax. 27: "Sed enim invenimus illum diiecto et deum et hominem +expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) ... hic erit homo et filius +hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum ... Videmus duplicem statum, +non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo +autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res +suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa +sit, esuriens sub diabolo ... denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex +utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utrinsque substantiæ." +In what follows the <i>actus utriusque substantiæ</i> are sharply demarcated: +"ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et +exitus sui occurrerunt ... neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane +esse possunt." See also c. 29: "Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in +Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote598" name="footnote598"></a><b>Footnote 598:</b><a href="#footnotetag598"> (return) </a><p> +Of this in a future volume. Here also two <i>substances</i> in Christ are always +spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to <i>de anima</i> 35, men have +already two substances in themselves) I know only one passage where Tertullian +speaks of <i>natures</i> in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves +nothing; de carne 5: "Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, +hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. Then: +"Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique <i>naturæ</i> cuiusque +veritate disjuncta est."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote599" name="footnote599"></a><b>Footnote 599:</b><a href="#footnotetag599"> (return) </a><p> In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula "deus et homo," or, after +Tertullian's time "duæ substantiæ," was always a simple expression of the facts +acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of +redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. +With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part +of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness +after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the <i>filius +dei</i> in the <i>caro</i>, that is in the <i>deus</i> so far as he is <i>incarnatus</i> +or has <i>changed</i> himself +into flesh. As to Tertullian's opposition to this view see what follows. In +contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated +to satisfy both the <i>salvation</i> interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian +creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained +from Tertullian's view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse +us for thus anticipating.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote600" name="footnote600"></a><b>Footnote 600:</b><a href="#footnotetag600"> (return) </a><p> "Quare," says Irenæus III. 21. 10—"igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus +sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, +esset plasmatio quæ salvaietur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote601" name="footnote601"></a><b>Footnote 601:</b><a href="#footnotetag601"> (return) </a><p> +See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed +it. It is as follows: "Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, +nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum.... +Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, +non ex semetipso suggerit factum" etc.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote602" name="footnote602"></a><b>Footnote 602:</b><a href="#footnotetag602"> (return) </a><p> Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues +against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself +into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation +in the strict sense, but of an <i>adunitio</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote603" name="footnote603"></a><b>Footnote 603:</b><a href="#footnotetag603"> (return) </a><p> So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read +a twofold conception into Irenæus' Christological utterances under the pretext that +Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that +are usually associated with this thought (Bohringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius +in opposition to him).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote604" name="footnote604"></a><b>Footnote 604:</b><a href="#footnotetag604"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own +peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by +Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: "Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, +qui erat induturus hominem.... Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii +scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, +qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo." Adv. Marc. V. 8: +"Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, +hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram"; the same in de resurr. 6. But +with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis +of further speculation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote605" name="footnote605"></a><b>Footnote 605:</b><a href="#footnotetag605"> (return) </a><p> +Iren. IV. 14. 2; for further particulars on the point see below, where +Irenæus' views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, +l.c., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, +are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote606" name="footnote606"></a><b>Footnote 606:</b><a href="#footnotetag606"> (return) </a><p> "Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice lesse et filius Abrabæ, +secunum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum ... secundum autem quod deus +erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat." All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference +to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an <i>exegetical</i> necessity +and must not be regarded as a theoretical <i>principle</i> +(this is also the case with Tertullian). +Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus' +incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which +represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually +united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person +with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenæus, in +conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulæ about Christ: +'ο Θεος, 'ο ποιησας τον ουρανον k.t.l., και 'ο τουτου παις, ον εχρισεν 'ο +Θεος—"Petrus +Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur." +But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus +not unfrequently calls Christ παις Θεος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote607" name="footnote607"></a><b>Footnote 607:</b><a href="#footnotetag607"> (return) </a><p> On Hippolytus' views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff.—an +account to be used with caution—and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), +p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the +Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown +how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It +is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has +become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at +bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an +exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just +as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists +like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover +came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. +edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no +means intended to give countenance to Kimmel's untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. +vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus' treatise c. +Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage +is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εις γαρ και 'ο του Θεου (Iren.), +δι' ου και +'ημεις τυχοντες την δια του 'αγιου πνευματος αναγεννεσιν εις ενα τελειον και επουρανιον +ανθρωπον 'οι παντες καταντησαι επιθυμουμεν (see Iren.) Επειδη γαρ 'ο λογος +του Θεου ασαρκος ων (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) +ενεδυσατο την 'αγιαν σαρκα εκ της +'αγιας παρθενου; 'ως νυμφιος 'ιματιον εξυφανας 'εαυτω ην τω σταυρικω παθει (Irenæus +and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of +the flesh), 'οπως συγκερασας το θνητον 'εμων σωμα τη 'εαυτου δυναμει και μιξας +(Iren., +Tertull.) τω αφθαρτω το φθαρτον και το ασθενες τω ισχυρω σωσε τον +απολλυμενον +ανθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it +shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of +the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. +Overbeck has rightly compared the αναπλασσειν δι' 'ευτου τον Αδαμ l.c., c. 26, +with the ανακεφαλαιουν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. +For Hippolytus' +Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noet. 10 ff. are the chief passages +of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that +Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, +insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we +have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to +his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal +hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποιον ουν 'υιον 'εαυτου 'ο Θεος δια της σαρκος +κατεπεμψεν αλλ' 'η τον λογον; 'ον 'υιον προσηγορευε δια το μελλειν αυτον γενεσθαι, +και το κοινον ονομα της εις ανθρωπους φιλοστοργιας αναλαμβανει 'ο 'υιος (καιτοι +τελειος λογος ων μονογενες). ουδ' 'η σαρξ καθ' 'εαυτην διχα του λογου 'υποστηναι +ηδυνατο δια το εν λογω την συστασιν εχειν 'ουτως ουν εις 'υιος τελειος Θεου +εφανερωθη. +Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree +of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the +latter of the "divine mysteries" of the faith. From the fragments and writings of +this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can +be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by +any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the +latter's confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with +comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For +example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as +her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo +61): ου παυσεται 'η εκκλησια γεννωσα εκ καρδιας τον λογον του εν κοσμω +'υπο απιστων διωκομενον. "και ετεκε", φησιν, "'υιον αρρενα, 'ος μελλει ποιμαινειν παντα +τα εθνη", τον αρρενα και τελειος Χριστον, παιδα Θεου, Θεον και ανθρωπον +καταγγελλομενον +αει τικτουσα 'η εκκλησια διδασκει παντα τα εθνη. If we consider how +Irenæus' pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse +"doctrines," we see how the "Scripture" theologians were the very ones who +threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian +schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same +result was threatened here—"doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum." +From this standpoint Origen's undertaking to subject the whole material +of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and +importance.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote608" name="footnote608"></a><b>Footnote 608:</b><a href="#footnotetag608"> (return) </a><p> +See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, +for example, ep. 58. 6: "filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius +hominis +(scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote609" name="footnote609"></a><b>Footnote 609:</b><a href="#footnotetag609"> (return) </a><p>See III. 10. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote610" name="footnote610"></a><b>Footnote 610:</b><a href="#footnotetag610"> (return) </a><p> +See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: 'η γνωσις του 'υιου του Θεου, 'ητις ην +αφθαρσια. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus' raising the question as +to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): "Si autem subit vos huiusmodi +sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam +omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus." The +new thing is then defined thus: "Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem +et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab +eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum +eius ... Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote611" name="footnote611"></a><b>Footnote 611:</b><a href="#footnotetag611"> (return) </a><p> +See IV. 36. 6: "Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (<i>i.e.</i>, μετα +την κλησιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei"—we +must provide <i>ourselves</i> with the wedding garment.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote612" name="footnote612"></a><b>Footnote 612:</b><a href="#footnotetag612"> (return) </a><p> The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 +shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; +V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity +of God's appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: "Si Adam iam non +reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset deus et superasset +serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, +magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc." That the accomplishment of salvation must be +effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness +as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote613" name="footnote613"></a><b>Footnote 613:</b><a href="#footnotetag613"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas +in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the <i>regula fidei</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote614" name="footnote614"></a><b>Footnote 614:</b><a href="#footnotetag614"> (return) </a><p> +See particularly V. 1. 1: "Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo rationabiliter +redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem +ducti sunt ... del verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam +conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum +ilia initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed +secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, +accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio +dei deperiret." We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not +possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of +one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea +to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it +by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edit Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. +p. 38 sq. See Rufinus' translation in Caspari's Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. +1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): +Τον πριωμενον +εφης, ειναι τον Χριστον, 'ο πεπρακως τις εστιν; ηλθεν εις σε 'ο απλους μυθος; +'οτι 'ο πωλων και 'ο αγοραζων αδελφοι εισιν; ει κακος ων 'ο διαβολος τω αγαθω πεπρακεν, +ουκ εστι κακος αλλα αγαθος; 'ο γαρ απ' αρχης φθονησας τω ανθρωπω, νυν ουκ ετι +'υπο φθονου αγεται, τω αγαθω την νομην παραδους. εσται ουν δικαιος 'ο του φθονου +και παντος κακου παυσαμενος. αυτος γουν 'ο Θεος 'ευρισκεται πωλησας; μαλλον δε +'οι 'ημαρτηκοτες 'εαυτους απηλλοτριωσαν 'οι ανθρωποι δια τας 'αμαρτιας αυτων; παλιν +δε ελυτρωθησαν δια την ευσπλαγχνιαν αυτου. τουτο γαρ φησιν 'ο προφητης; Ταις +'αμαρτιαις +'υμων επραθητε και ταις ανομιαις εξαπεστειλα την μητερα 'υμων. Και αλλος +παλιν; Δωρεαν επραθητε, και ου μετα αργυριου λυτρωθησεσθε. το, ουδε μετα αργυριου; +δηλονοτι, του 'αιματος του Χριστου. τουτο γαρ φασκει 'ο προφητης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 +follows). Εικος δε 'οτι κατα σε επριατο δους 'εαυτου το 'αιμα; πως ουν και εκ +νεκρων +ηγειρετο; ει γαρ 'ο λαβων την τιμην των ανθρωπων, το 'αιμα, απεδωκεν, ουκετι επωλησεν. +Ει δε μη απεδωκε, πως ανεστη Χριστος, ουκετι ουν το, Εξουσιαν εχω θειναι και +εξουσιαν εχω λαβειν, 'ισταται; 'ο γουν διαβολος κατεχει το 'αιμα του Χριστου αντι +της τιμης των ανθρωπων; πολλη βλασφημιος ανοια! Φευ των κακων! Απεθανεν, ανεστη +'ως δυνατος; εθηκεν 'ο ελαβεν; αυτη ποια πρασις; του προφητου λεγοντος; Αναστητω +'ο Θεος και διασκορπισθητωσαν 'οι εχθροι αυτου, Οπου αναστασις, εκει θανατοσ! +That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote615" name="footnote615"></a><b>Footnote 615:</b><a href="#footnotetag615"> (return) </a><p> +See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: "Christus per passionem +reconciliavit nos deo." It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which +Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy +("this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled"). Here we certainly have an +advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a +modification of that proof.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote616" name="footnote616"></a><b>Footnote 616:</b><a href="#footnotetag616"> (return) </a><p> +See, <i>e.g.</i>, IV. 5. 4: +προθυμως Αβρααμ τον ιδιον μονογενη και αγαπητον παραχωρησας +θυσιαν τω Θεω, 'ινα και 'ο Θεος ευδοκηση 'υπερ του σπερματος αυτου παντος +τον ιδιον μονογενη και αγαπητον 'υιον θυσιαν παρασχειν εις λυτρωσιν 'ημετεραν.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote617" name="footnote617"></a><b>Footnote 617:</b><a href="#footnotetag617"> (return) </a><p> There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated +sin, abolished Adam's disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his +obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain +how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul's thoughts.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote618" name="footnote618"></a><b>Footnote 618:</b><a href="#footnotetag618"> (return) </a><p> +Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit +of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the +false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and +Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 +and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet +with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man +Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of +salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the +episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and +interpretation +(IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote619" name="footnote619"></a><b>Footnote 619:</b><a href="#footnotetag619"> (return) </a><p> See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also +have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to +the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus +was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. +It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these +pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation +through the arrival of Christ among them.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote620" name="footnote620"></a><b>Footnote 620:</b><a href="#footnotetag620"> (return) </a><p> +See III. 16. 6: "In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo +in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus +comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum +recapitulans, uti sicut in supercaelestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est +verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum +primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad +semetipsum apto in tempore."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote621" name="footnote621"></a><b>Footnote 621:</b><a href="#footnotetag621"> (return) </a><p> There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole +work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death +was the aim of Christ's mission. See, <i>e.g.</i>, de pat. 3: "Taceo quod figitur; in +hoc enim venerat"; de bapt. II: "Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini +passione, nee vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius"; adv. Marc. III. 8: "Si mendacium +deprehenditur Christi caro... nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. +Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, +mors Christi, negatur, quam iam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum +eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis +suae," 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also +adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption—the constitution of +Christ is the redemption—though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. +II. 27: "filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, +quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex +æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset." Here +therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts +to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called "fidelissimus sequester dei et +hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet." Note the future tense. +It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of +men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the +lawgiver and teacher: "Και ταυτα μεν εκφευξη Θεον τον οντα διδαχθεις, εξεις δε +αθανατον το σωμα και αφθαρτον 'αμα ψυχη, βασιλειαν ουρανων αποληψη, 'ο εν γη +βιους και επουρανιον βασιλεα επιγνους, εση δε 'ομιλητης Θεου και συγκληρονομος +Χριστου, ουκ επιθυμιαις η παθεσι και νοσοις δουλουμενος. Γεγονας γαρ Θεος 'οσα γαρ +'υπεμεινας παθη ανθρωπος ων, ταυτα εδιδου, 'οτι ανθρωπος εις, 'οσα δε παρακολουθει +Θεω, ταυτα παρεχειν επηγγελται Θεος, 'οτι εθεοποιηθης, αθανατος γεννηθεις. Τουτεστι +το Γνωθι σεαυτον, επιγνους του πεποιηκοτα Θοεν. Το γαρ επιγνωναι 'εαυτον επιγνωσθηναι +συμβεβηκε τω καλουμενω 'υπ' αυτου. Μη φιλεχθρησητε τοινυν 'εαυτοις, ανθρωποι, +μηδε το παλινδρομειν διστασητε. Χριστος γαρ εστιν 'ο κατα παντων Θεος, ος την +'αμαρτιαν εξ ανθρωπων αποπλυνειν προεταξε, νεον τον παλαιον ανθρωπον αποτελων, +εικονα τουτον καλεσας απ' αρχης, δια τυπου την εις σε επιδεικνυμενος στοργην, ου +προσταγμασιν 'υπακουσας σεμνοις, και αγαθου αγαθος γενομενος μιμητης, εση 'ομοιος +'υπ' αυτου τιμηθεις. Ου γαρ πτωχευει Θεος και σε Θεον ποιησας εις δοξαν αυτου." +It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, +Christ's death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but +the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian +used the expression "satisfacere deo" about men (see, <i>e.g.</i>, de bapt. 20; +de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression +is very frequent in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In +both writers, moreover, we find "meritum" (<i>e.g.</i>, Scorp. 6) and "promereri deum". +With them and with Novatian the idea of "culpa" is also more strongly emphasised +than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: "quoniam +cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata +est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis <i>culpa</i> merito +reprehensa est." Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: "Exempto reatu eximitur et poena." +On the other hand he speaks of fasting as "officia humiliationis", through which +we can "inlicere" God. Among these Western writers the thought that God's +anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a +much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas +as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were +already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general +way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture +texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter's speculations are not +found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear +scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst, Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a +superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view +than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold +transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the +substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which +in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen's day) and +in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean +the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the +human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination +of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the +Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical +notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human +soul. See the Gnostics (<i>e.g.</i>, the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto +27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de anima 41 +fin.: "Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium"; and the +still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is +found in Clem. Horn. III. 27: +νυμφη γαρ εστιν 'ο πας ανθρωπος, 'οποταν του αληθους +προφητου λευκω λογω αληθειας σπειρομενος φωτιζηται τον νουν. The second is the +apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd +Epistle of Clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. +Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs +to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de +monog. II, and my notes on Διδαχη XI. 11). The conclusion that could be +drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, +viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as +the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. +63: "Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et +sponsum spousæ; comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel +dotis nomine sequetur animam caro ... Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum +sponsum per sanguinem pacta est"; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, +that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather +than of the individual soul.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote622" name="footnote622"></a><b>Footnote 622:</b><a href="#footnotetag622"> (return) </a><p> +By the <i>regula</i> inasmuch as the words "from thence he will come to judge +the quick and the dead" had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in +the <i>duplex adventus Christi</i> formed one of the most important articles of Church +belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages +in Hesse, "das Muratorische Fragment", p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of +Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under +Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote623" name="footnote623"></a><b>Footnote 623:</b><a href="#footnotetag623"> (return) </a><p> +Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., +chap. 4, Vol. I, p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I, p. 105 f. On Melito compare the +testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work +"περι του διαβολου και της αποκαλυψεως Ιωαννου." Chiliastic ideas are also +found in the +epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work +"de Christo et Antichristo" and Overbeck's careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the +agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter's +chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my +opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a +later period both from Hippolytus' book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive +fragments of Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel are also to be compared +(and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to Rome lately discovered by +Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. +Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the +subsequently +suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, +Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., I. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on +the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; +cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in +which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about +chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, +he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete +orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. +(see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin +downwards. +See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodic supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, +Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who +completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. +The idea of a kind of purgatory—a notion which does not originate with the +realistic but with the philosophical eschatology—is quite plainly found in Tertullian, +<i>e.g.</i>, in de anima 57 and 58 ("modicum delictum illuc luendum"). He speaks in +several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally +diffused idea (<i>e.g.</i>, Scorp. 6).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote624" name="footnote624"></a><b>Footnote 624:</b><a href="#footnotetag624"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in +opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and +goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and +Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the +essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and +the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation +of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), +and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3). Then he discusses +the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be +are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself +the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in +attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to +Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in +himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is +described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according +to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom, +that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan +(V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ +will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the +world's history have elapsed; for "in as many days as the world was made, in so +many thousands of years will it be ended" (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then +the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the +first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued +against such "as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the +righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility" (V. 31). By this +he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the +contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection +which takes place on the return of Christ, after which the souls receive back their +bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour's Kingdom (V. 31. 2). +This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; "for it is just that they +should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they +suffered tribulation"; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine +would be given to him and to his seed, <i>i.e.</i>, the Christians, must be fulfilled +(V. 32). There they will eat and drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1) +sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the +land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to +alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). +The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able +to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are +everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues +against any figurative interpretation (ibid, and V. 35). He therefore adopted the +whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as +the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, +the general judgment, and the final end.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote625" name="footnote625"></a><b>Footnote 625:</b><a href="#footnotetag625"> (return) </a><p> +Hippolytus in the lost book 'υπερ του κατα Ιωαννην ευαγγελιου και αποκαλυψεως. +Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of +Chiliasm.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote626" name="footnote626"></a><b>Footnote 626:</b><a href="#footnotetag626"> (return) </a><p>See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote627" name="footnote627"></a><b>Footnote 627:</b><a href="#footnotetag627"> (return) </a><p> +In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoe the people would +not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an "apostasy" from +the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled "Refutation +of the allegorists" attained the highest repute. "They esteem the law and the +prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of +the Apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be +a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain +a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, +of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with +him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the +present in the kingdom of God." So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words +are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact +the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases +where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced +these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still +long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence +Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian +languages.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote628" name="footnote628"></a><b>Footnote 628:</b><a href="#footnotetag628"> (return) </a><p>See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote629" name="footnote629"></a><b>Footnote 629:</b><a href="#footnotetag629"> (return) </a><p> It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all Iren. +IV. 9. 1: "Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, +dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est." Both Testaments +are "unius et emsdem substantiæ." IV. 2. 3: "Moysis literæ sunt verba +Christi."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote630" name="footnote630"></a><b>Footnote 630:</b><a href="#footnotetag630"> (return) </a><p>See Iren. IV. 31. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote631" name="footnote631"></a><b>Footnote 631:</b><a href="#footnotetag631"> (return) </a><p> Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.): "Sic apostoli, quos universi actus +et +universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, +qnæ; est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo"; see Overbeck +"Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvatern," +1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote632" name="footnote632"></a><b>Footnote 632:</b><a href="#footnotetag632"> (return) </a><p> +Cf., <i>e.g.</i>, de monog. 7: "Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogarniæ +debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tune in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit." +Here also Tertullian's Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions +of the Paraclete as <i>new legislation</i>, the Montanists would not renounce the view +that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of +revelation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote633" name="footnote633"></a><b>Footnote 633:</b><a href="#footnotetag633"> (return) </a><p> Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen's works and +the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, +lib. I.-VI.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote634" name="footnote634"></a><b>Footnote 634:</b><a href="#footnotetag634"> (return) </a><p> +Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional +application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every +Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case +even to the present day.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote635" name="footnote635"></a><b>Footnote 635:</b><a href="#footnotetag635"> (return) </a><p> With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing +in common.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote636" name="footnote636"></a><b>Footnote 636:</b><a href="#footnotetag636"> (return) </a><p>Iren. III. 12. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote637" name="footnote637"></a><b>Footnote 637:</b><a href="#footnotetag637"> (return) </a><p>See III. 12. 12.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote638" name="footnote638"></a><b>Footnote 638:</b><a href="#footnotetag638"> (return) </a><p> +No <i>commutatio agnitionis</i> takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased +gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is "principium evangelli." +(III. 11. 7).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote639" name="footnote639"></a><b>Footnote 639:</b><a href="#footnotetag639"> (return) </a><p> +See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, <i>e.g.</i>, IV. 20 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. +1-4.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote640" name="footnote640"></a><b>Footnote 640:</b><a href="#footnotetag640"> (return) </a><p> Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) +III. II. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote641" name="footnote641"></a><b>Footnote 641:</b><a href="#footnotetag641"> (return) </a><p> +This is very frequently mentioned; see <i>e.g.</i>, IV. 13. 1: "Et quia dominus +naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant +qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc." IV. 15, 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote642" name="footnote642"></a><b>Footnote 642:</b><a href="#footnotetag642"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. II. 8: +"Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem +et gloriam colloquebatur", and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son's having +descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, +see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew +both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to +the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to +bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote643" name="footnote643"></a><b>Footnote 643:</b><a href="#footnotetag643"> (return) </a><p> On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he +frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters +who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much +higher, for they only lacked the <i>agnitio filii</i>. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. +12. 7, +IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get +rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and +do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; +and the <i>agnitio filii</i> seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, +<i>veritas</i>, and +sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote644" name="footnote644"></a><b>Footnote 644:</b><a href="#footnotetag644"> (return) </a><p> Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: "Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet +salutem".</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote645" name="footnote645"></a><b>Footnote 645:</b><a href="#footnotetag645"> (return) </a><p> +As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed +even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: +IV. 14. 2: "his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem ... per omnes +transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens". IV. +4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was +necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. +32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness +of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between +the "people" and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets +he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a +new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was +typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical +signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through +the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in +the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, +that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because +he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The +latter occupied "the middle times", and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). +This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus +to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, <i>growth</i> and +<i>training</i>, +instead of the religious ones, <i>sin</i> and <i>grace</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote646" name="footnote646"></a><b>Footnote 646:</b><a href="#footnotetag646"> (return) </a><p> +The law, <i>i.e.</i>, the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New +Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of +God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. +11. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. +36. 2. Christ did not abolish the <i>natus alia legis</i>, the Decalogue, but extended and +fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon +on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of +the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that +the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, +extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the +natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: "Austero dei +præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem". IV. 13. 1. f.: "Christus naturalia +legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit ... +plenitudo et extensio ... necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi +vero decreta libertatis". That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on +the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. +IV. 16. 5: "Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit +novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia +omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, +patrem scire deum ... auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet +quam servos". IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old +Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, "propter +eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur". IV. 28. 1 f.: under +the old covenant God punished "typice et temporaliter et mediocrius", under the +new, on the contrary, "vere et semper et austerius" ... as under the new covenant +"fides aucta est", so also it is true that "diligentia conversationis adaucta +est". The imperfections of the law, the "particularia legis", the law of bondage +have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now +fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first +granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united +(III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict +each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have +been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote647" name="footnote647"></a><b>Footnote 647:</b><a href="#footnotetag647"> (return) </a><p> See III. II. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not +merely a prophet, but also an Apostle.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote648" name="footnote648"></a><b>Footnote 648:</b><a href="#footnotetag648"> (return) </a><p> +From Irenæus' statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem +we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch +on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch +is cut off and has no further importance.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote649" name="footnote649"></a><b>Footnote 649:</b><a href="#footnotetag649"> (return) </a><p> +No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from +Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in +Irenæus' view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of +the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. I: +"Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum +ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia +de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore +totius retro vetustatis." (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of +Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with +God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again +distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he +had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the <i>regula fidei</i> +(de +præscr. 13): "Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum"; +see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: "amplianda +adimplendaque lex." Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: "Et quoniam +quidam interdum nihil sihi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed +adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), +plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, +quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam +spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata." That the new law +of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the +concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find +still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad +uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: "Quod permittitur, bonum non est," and this +proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the +intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they +existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. +It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage +alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to +heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came +into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions +as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, +of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was +also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not +only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the +chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. +This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is +this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of +detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference +to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see +Noldechen's article in the Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, +p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian +required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the +Muratorian Fragment: "completus numerus prophetarum", Sibyll. I. 386: και τοτε +δη παυσις εσται μετεπειτα προφητωυ, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as +a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In +like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the +Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied +this thesis. Cf. also Baith "Tertullian's Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines +Verhaltnisses zu den Uraposteln" (Jahrbuch fur protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. +p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with +the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from +the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the +early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution +of this insoluble problem.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote650" name="footnote650"></a><b>Footnote 650:</b><a href="#footnotetag650"> (return) </a><p> +In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the +idea that there is a "Christian" view in all spheres of life and in all questions +of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. +This is also Gnosticism. Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about +dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work "de anima" with the words: "Tenemur +hie de sommis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere". Alongside of the +antignostic rule of faith as the "doctrine" we find the casuistic system of morality +and penance (the Church "disciplina") with its media of almsgiving, fasting, and +prayer; see Cypr, de op et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel +(Εκκλ Αληθ. 1886, p. 242): 'οι εις τυ ονομα τον Θεου πιστευοντες και +δι' αγαθοεργιας +το προσωπον αυτου εξιλασκομενοι.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote651" name="footnote651"></a><b>Footnote 651:</b><a href="#footnotetag651"> (return) </a><p> +In the case of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they +observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof +from Scripture.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote652" name="footnote652"></a><b>Footnote 652:</b><a href="#footnotetag652"> (return) </a><p> +It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in +the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian's +adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates' Ecclesiastical History), were of the +orthodox Nicæan type. This furnishes material for reflection.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote653" name="footnote653"></a><b>Footnote 653:</b><a href="#footnotetag653"> (return) </a><p> Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological +and trinitarian disquisitions from the work "de trinitate". The archaic attitude +of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. +(1) Like Tertullian, Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always +with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of +time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that +Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are 'ομοουσιοι, +the <i>homoousia</i> +of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the Son is subordinate +and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they +derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). +(3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, +will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an +independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so +long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of +Sardika. Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the +work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West +down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus' +dogmatic. The sharp distinction between "deus" and "homo" and the use that +is nevertheless made of "permixtio" and synonymous words are also specially +characteristic. Cap. 9: "Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius"; c. 11: +"non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum +esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum +illum teneamus"; c. 11 Christ has <i>auctoritas divina</i>, "tam enim scriptura etiam +deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem +descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum +dominum." In c. 12 the term "Immanuel" is used to designate Christ as God in +a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: "præsertim cum animadvertat, +scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi +fœderasse concordiam"; c. 14: "Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus"; +c. 16: "... ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur ... +utrumque in Christo confœderatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum +est ... pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia ... +qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse +reperitur ... nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam ... lavit substantiam +corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione"; +c. 17: "... nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim +conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum +hominem fert, quem suscepit"; c. 18: "... ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet +terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora +et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem +carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici +possit"; c. 19: "hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum +sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se +rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum +dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian's teaching is therefore like that +of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius +'filius dei' in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius +in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter his filius dei factus sit, dum non +principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem +istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis +collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. 'Propterea et quod nascetur ex +te sanctum vocabitur filius dei'. Ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis +non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis +contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare +deberent.... Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter +illum filium dei fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum +filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fœneratum et mutuatum +teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli +voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione +distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque +dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo +Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum +et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem fœderis confibulatione +sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant". +c. 21: "hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, +sed ipsum patrem;" c. 22: "Cum Christus 'Ego' dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem +infert dicendo, 'Ego et pater', proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna +auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam +de ordine dispositæ potestatis ... unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, +non unitatem personæ sonat ... unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et +eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit +pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex +patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione ... denique +novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione." +(Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! "Quos +personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; +et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo +sint, unum sunt"); c. 23: "constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; +ex deo autem homo quomodo nou processit, sic dei verbum processit". +In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that +not merely "predestinatione", for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior +to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. "Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est +posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem"; c. 31: "Est ergo +deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, +immensus, +immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo +filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis +accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinas +nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit ..., filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta +cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic +dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper +in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus +est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum +etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat +necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor +sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis +originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem +non habet, nascitur ..., substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum ..., +deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud +patri quod unus est deus.... Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia +aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur.... Dum huic, qui est +deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, +totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et +æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et +directa rursus per substantiæ; communionem ad patrem revolvitur."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote654" name="footnote654"></a><b>Footnote 654:</b><a href="#footnotetag654"> (return) </a><p> +If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed +abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time +allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances +as well as hagiographical literature).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote655" name="footnote655"></a><b>Footnote 655:</b><a href="#footnotetag655"> (return) </a><p> I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in +this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of +these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the +history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in +regard to the doctrine of God, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, +and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to +several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted.</p></blockquote> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page319" id="page319"></a>[pg 319]</span> + + + + +<h2><a name="CHAP_VI" id="CHAP_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL +TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, +OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY +AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH.</h3> + +<p>The Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance +for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian +one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In +the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific +means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any +value in Greek science and culture. These Alexandrians wrote +for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity +a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the +Christian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was first +completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person +of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of +Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John +Damascenus.</p> + +<h3><a name="SEC_VI_I" id="SEC_VI_I"></a>1. <i>The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria.</i><a id="footnotetag656" name="footnotetag656"></a><a href="#footnote656"><sup>656</sup></a></h3> + +<p>"The work of Irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the +form of the world's literature, as found in the Christian Church, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page320" id="page320"></a>[pg 320]</span> +is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or +is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own +territory." With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination +of Clement of Alexandria's great masterpiece from the +standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied +to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian +(and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to +expel heretical elements; but all the theological expositions that +this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view +part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely +no clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology +another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are +found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology +in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative +distinction between simple believers and "Gnostics," proved that +they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological +speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was +virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, +with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy +life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases +even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page321" id="page321"></a>[pg 321]</span> +growing independence and might of the aspiration for a +scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that +is of Christian tradition.<a id="footnotetag657" name="footnotetag657"></a><a href="#footnote657"><sup>657</sup></a> There is a wish to maintain this +tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. +The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism—though +indeed in accordance with its methods—and declared +to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the +given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics +had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by +a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a +philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of +the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate +the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.<a id="footnotetag658" name="footnotetag658"></a><a href="#footnote658"><sup>658</sup></a> +Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance +afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the +Church.<a id="footnotetag659" name="footnotetag659"></a><a href="#footnote659"><sup>659</sup></a> In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly +before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was +fixed by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi). From the history +of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, afterwards +bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history +of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Cæsarea), we learn +that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of +ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pursuits. +Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian +kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on +philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western +standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a +theological school which maintained its ground in the third +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page322" id="page322"></a>[pg 322]</span> +century and attained great importance.<a id="footnotetag660" name="footnotetag660"></a><a href="#footnote660"><sup>660</sup></a> In Palestine, during +the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africanus +composed a series of books on scientific theology, which +were specifically different from the writings of Irenæus and +Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship +in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. +His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus +and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed +that the Church's attention had been drawn to problems of +historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest +is subordinate to the historical, and in his Κεστοι, dedicated to +Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise +on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer +traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander +of Ælia and Theoktistus of Cæsarea, the occupants of the two +most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with +him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at +that early time the former founded an important theological library; +and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he +had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit +of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, +there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible +was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, +Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, +the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians +of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to +naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius +(H. E. V. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series +of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and +ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period.</p> + +<p>Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the +close of the second and beginning of the third century, show +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page323" id="page323"></a>[pg 323]</span> +that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, +but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking +proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school +of catechists in Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin +of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year +190,<a id="footnotetag661" name="footnotetag661"></a><a href="#footnote661"><sup>661</sup></a> but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy +was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West. +We know further that the school of catechists extended its +labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, +and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits +there.<a id="footnotetag662" name="footnotetag662"></a><a href="#footnote662"><sup>662</sup></a> Finally, we know that the existence of this school +was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but +Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and +scientific interests.<a id="footnotetag663" name="footnotetag663"></a><a href="#footnote663"><sup>663</sup></a> In the Alexandrian school of catechists the +whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose +of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known +to us from the writings he has left, is <i>Clement of Alexandria</i>.<a id="footnotetag664" name="footnotetag664"></a><a href="#footnote664"><sup>664</sup></a> +His main work is epoch-making. "Clement's intention is nothing +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page324" id="page324"></a>[pg 324]</span> +less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly +and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation +into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction +to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, +so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by +means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he +wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already +done for him as it is, but to elevate him to something still +higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of +initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course +of a history already dating back a century and a half." To +Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of +religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, +but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is +highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, +because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, +both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to +him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only +make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific +and philosophical treatment.<a id="footnotetag665" name="footnotetag665"></a><a href="#footnote665"><sup>665</sup></a> His great work, which has rightly +been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of +the Church,<a id="footnotetag666" name="footnotetag666"></a><a href="#footnote666"><sup>666</sup></a> is consequently the first attempt to use Holy +Scripture and the Church tradition together with the assumption +that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, +as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once +addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand +for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the +same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. +Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian +doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page325" id="page325"></a>[pg 325]</span> +not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it +to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the +province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge +and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God.<a id="footnotetag667" name="footnotetag667"></a><a href="#footnote667"><sup>667</sup></a> +Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, as found in +tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence +and devotion to God which he regards as moral perfection. +He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes +that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far +as this is only the deciphering of the secrets revealed in the +Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer +also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge +is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical +and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with +God, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of +Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole scientific +knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, +and associated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical +Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church +tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of +the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him +a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.<a id="footnotetag668" name="footnotetag668"></a><a href="#footnote668"><sup>668</sup></a> +In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage +that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page326" id="page326"></a>[pg 326]</span> +exercised great influence over him.<a id="footnotetag669" name="footnotetag669"></a><a href="#footnote669"><sup>669</sup></a> Moreover, Clement stands +on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has +advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin +not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic +task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive +one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the +tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far +more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin's time, +into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the +greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of +the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos +who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation +of the world and in the exposition of Christianity, Clement +gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content +than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, +training, and redemption of mankind by the Logos, whose work +culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, +in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart +of the Old Testament law;<a id="footnotetag670" name="footnotetag670"></a><a href="#footnote670"><sup>670</sup></a> and the facts contained in the +Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical +dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. +The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand +so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of +nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge +of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The +Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; +but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the +blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page327" id="page327"></a>[pg 327]</span> +alone contain the possibility of man's raising himself to the +divine life.<a id="footnotetag671" name="footnotetag671"></a><a href="#footnote671"><sup>671</sup></a> While this is already clear evidence of Clement's +affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same +similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the +task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal +principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, +p. 35 f.),<a id="footnotetag672" name="footnotetag672"></a><a href="#footnote672"><sup>672</sup></a> and in the solution of the problems. But Clement's +great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving +to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the +main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering +so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, +in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with +the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most +closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could +not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled +with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic +pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading +the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic +that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page328" id="page328"></a>[pg 328]</span> +Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest +philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and +guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was +thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos +is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and +rational in all stages of development. The Logos is the teacher, +not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood +by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards +off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation +is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines +the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and +finite.<a id="footnotetag673" name="footnotetag673"></a><a href="#footnote673"><sup>673</sup></a> What Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts +Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; +and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that +already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the +humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. +His speculation did not drive him out of the Church; it rather +enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained +and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him +to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system +he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history +satisfactory to his mind.<a id="footnotetag674" name="footnotetag674"></a><a href="#footnote674"><sup>674</sup></a> If we compare this theory with the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page329" id="page329"></a>[pg 329]</span> +rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenæus, we see clearly +the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, +in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he +understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, +Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance +from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss +what apparatus he used for this end. Irenæus again remained +entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the <i>novum +testamentum libertatis</i>, his great work little conveys the impression +that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. +Clement was the first to grasp the task of future theology. +According to him this task consists in utilising the historical +traditions, through which we have become what we are, and +the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being +the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom +and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and +in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, +who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above +the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout +the whole history of humanity.</p> + +<p>But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? +We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For +the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the +Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal +of the self-sufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling +that man lives by the grace of God. But the danger of secularisation +lies in the cramped conception of Irenæus, who sets up +authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates +facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though +in a different way. If the Gospel is meant to give freedom and +peace in God, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union +with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly +say to his opponents: "If the things we say appear to some +people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know +that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these +their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter" +(καν 'ετεροια τισι των πολλων καταφαινηται τα 'υφ' 'ημων λεγομενα +των κυριακων γραφων, ιστεον 'οτι εκειθεν αναπνει τε και ζη και τας +αφορμας απ' αυτων εχοντα τον νουν μονον, ου την λεξιν, παρισταν +επαγγελλεται).<a id="footnotetag675" name="footnotetag675"></a><a href="#footnote675"><sup>675</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page330" id="page330"></a>[pg 330]</span> +No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the +whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but +we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the +object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in +God and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness +of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas +of Clement and the Alexandrians; they also occupy the foremost +place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must +avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how +far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy.</p> + +<p>But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition +was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of +religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian +character of Clement's "dogmas" in acknowledging the evangelical +spirit of his practical position. What would be left of Christianity, +if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, +were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely +no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were +many valuable features in the ecclesiastical <i>regula</i> literally interpreted; +and the attempts of Irenæus to extract an authoritative +religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition +and of New Testament passages must be regarded as conservative +efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenæus and his +theological <i>confrères</i> did not themselves find in Christianity that +freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they +preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. +If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, +men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in +the preserved tradition, as prized by Irenæus and the rest, whereas +it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due +to the speculations of religious philosophers.</p> + +<p>The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page331" id="page331"></a>[pg 331]</span> +the history of dogma is not associated with Clement, but with +his disciple Origen.<a id="footnotetag676" name="footnotetag676"></a><a href="#footnote676"><sup>676</sup></a> This was not because Clement was more +heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the +Stromateis is concerned at least;<a id="footnotetag677" name="footnotetag677"></a><a href="#footnote677"><sup>677</sup></a> but because the latter exerted +an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with +an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, +already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own +unaided efforts. Another reason is that Clement did not possess +the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did +(see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as +yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers +is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative +ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all +produced according to a definite method and have the same +object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand +Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as +he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite +type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the +previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of +this tradition.<a id="footnotetag678" name="footnotetag678"></a><a href="#footnote678"><sup>678</sup></a> Now a sharp eye indeed perceives that Origen +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page332" id="page332"></a>[pg 332]</span> +personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious +theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more +tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which +here and there led him into compromises that remind us of +Irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development +of the following period took place. It is therefore sufficient, +within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer +to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting +forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points +with the doctrines of Clement.</p> + + +<h3><a name="SEC_VI_II" id="SEC_VI_II"></a>2. <i>The system of Origen.</i><a id="footnotetag679" name="footnotetag679"></a><a href="#footnote679"><sup>679</sup></a></h3> + +<p>Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was +the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He +proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense +of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that +theology which reached its complete development in the fourth +and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its +author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on +it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the +sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of +that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything +clear in Christianity; the antignostic Fathers had confused the +Church's faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised +the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit +of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by +freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page333" id="page333"></a>[pg 333]</span> +what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving +the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give +it a philosophical foundation. Like all epoch-making personalities, +he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though +he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family +which was faithfully attached to the Church, he lived at a time +when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted +peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member +of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was +already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position +in an organised school.<a id="footnotetag680" name="footnotetag680"></a><a href="#footnote680"><sup>680</sup></a> He proclaimed the reconciliation of +science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the +highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, +thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient +world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd +calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the +sacred documents of Christianity contained all the ideals of +antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical +Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was +pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, +but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church +whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as +that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian +and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind remained +sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.<a id="footnotetag681" name="footnotetag681"></a><a href="#footnote681"><sup>681</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page334" id="page334"></a>[pg 334]</span> +To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents +various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present +day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able +to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of +his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot +doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts +of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect +and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-minded +or the immature will at all times necessarily consider +such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious +and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. +Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced +beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected +and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off +his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, +she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of +speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the +rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, +in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between +Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula +of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned +whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating +whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and +a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that +between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged +over.</p> + +<p>The Christian system of Origen<a id="footnotetag682" name="footnotetag682"></a><a href="#footnote682"><sup>682</sup></a> is worked out in opposition +to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian +Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies +of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.<a id="footnotetag683" name="footnotetag683"></a><a href="#footnote683"><sup>683</sup></a> But the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page335" id="page335"></a>[pg 335]</span> +science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up +with the appliances of Philo's science, bears unmistakable marks +of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in +the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore +likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised +by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the +axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in +Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment +of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in +the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology +as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. Finally, however, +since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that +the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure +Church) is the sole possessor of God's holy revelations with whose +authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the +two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as +the absolutely reliable divine revelation.<a id="footnotetag684" name="footnotetag684"></a><a href="#footnote684"><sup>684</sup></a> But, in addition to +these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule +of faith, was authoritative and holy.<a id="footnotetag685" name="footnotetag685"></a><a href="#footnote685"><sup>685</sup></a> By acknowledging not +only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great +mass of simple Christians, as the Valentinians did, but also the +indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, +Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox +Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able +to maintain this standpoint, because in the first place his Gnosis +required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page336" id="page336"></a>[pg 336]</span> +the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis +had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical +Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the +same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance +from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was +to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite +of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian +Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him +and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: 'η +γνωσις αγαπα και τους αγνοουντας διδασκει τε και παιδευει την +πασαν κτισιν του παντοκρατορος Θεου τιμαν, "Gnosis loves and +instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation +of God Almighty"); and enabled them everywhere to discover, +hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and +narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically +obscure.<a id="footnotetag686" name="footnotetag686"></a><a href="#footnote686"><sup>686</sup></a> As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent +of all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces +a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, +that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, +that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised +by the Church in her rule of faith,<a id="footnotetag687" name="footnotetag687"></a><a href="#footnote687"><sup>687</sup></a> and that belief is of itself +sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an +idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of +ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed +philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, +adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the +labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates. +These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying +"know thyself" into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, +and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to +attain to his true self.<a id="footnotetag688" name="footnotetag688"></a><a href="#footnote688"><sup>688</sup></a> These rules made the true "sage" +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page337" id="page337"></a>[pg 337]</span> +abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and +"from burdensome appearance in public". They asserted that +the mind "can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself." +This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying +itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring +its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.<a id="footnotetag689" name="footnotetag689"></a><a href="#footnote689"><sup>689</sup></a> Here +it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything +is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest +good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm +contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed +that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous<a id="footnotetag690" name="footnotetag690"></a><a href="#footnote690"><sup>690</sup></a> and lives +in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end +vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one +can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession +of God involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that +the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite +of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness.<a id="footnotetag691" name="footnotetag691"></a><a href="#footnote691"><sup>691</sup></a> Nor, on the +other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both +types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into +each other in this multiplicity. This was the case with Clement +and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state +without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order +and peace—but peace in God. Reconciled to the course of the +world, trusting in the divine Logos,<a id="footnotetag692" name="footnotetag692"></a><a href="#footnote692"><sup>692</sup></a> rich in disinterested love to +God and the brethren, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking +up with longing to heaven its native city,<a id="footnotetag693" name="footnotetag693"></a><a href="#footnote693"><sup>693</sup></a> the created spirit +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page338" id="page338"></a>[pg 338]</span> +attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by +the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself +with the divine—"Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field +of eternity"—by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, +however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that +is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: "The soul practises +viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in +herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; +and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to +deification."<a id="footnotetag694" name="footnotetag694"></a><a href="#footnote694"><sup>694</sup></a> Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic systems +of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.<a id="footnotetag695" name="footnotetag695"></a><a href="#footnote695"><sup>695</sup></a> +With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental +element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. +To Origen's mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical +injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. +(1) The philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of +God, tolerated the existence of polytheism; and this was really +the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not +become universally accessible through them.<a id="footnotetag696" name="footnotetag696"></a><a href="#footnote696"><sup>696</sup></a> (3) As the result +of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.<a id="footnotetag697" name="footnotetag697"></a><a href="#footnote697"><sup>697</sup></a> In contrast +to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people +through Moses—"Would to God the Jews had not transgressed +the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would +then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which +Plato has sought to describe"<a id="footnotetag698" name="footnotetag698"></a><a href="#footnote698"><sup>698</sup></a>—and the Logos shows his universal +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page339" id="page339"></a>[pg 339]</span> +power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, +and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge +and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, +and susceptible of, that which is good.<a id="footnotetag699" name="footnotetag699"></a><a href="#footnote699"><sup>699</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page340" id="page340"></a>[pg 340]</span> + +<p>Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its +varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed +the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. +The Gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a +Scripture theology,<a id="footnotetag700" name="footnotetag700"></a><a href="#footnote700"><sup>700</sup></a> and materially a cosmological speculation. +On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, +moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures +are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and +only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page341" id="page341"></a>[pg 341]</span> +in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and +Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of +emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community +of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. +The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, +which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not +seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen's +Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the +metaphysics of the age. However, as he was the equal of the +foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy +imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently +developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic +Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken +in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the +most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; +we mean the judgment passed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., +H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,<a id="footnotetag701" name="footnotetag701"></a><a href="#footnote701"><sup>701</sup></a> but the culminating +point is the judgment contained in § 7: κατα μεν τον Βιον Χριστιανως +ζων και παρανομως, κατα δε τας περι των πραγματων και +του θεου δοξας 'Ελληνιζων και τα 'Ελληνων τοις οθνειοις 'υποβαλλομενος +μυθοις. ("His outward life was that of a Christian and +opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and +of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he +introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.") We can +everywhere verify this observation from Origen's works and +particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is +continually obliged to mask his essential agreement in principles +and method with the enemy of the Christians.<a id="footnotetag702" name="footnotetag702"></a><a href="#footnote702"><sup>702</sup></a> The Gnosis is +in fact the Hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of +the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality immovable, +and only assumes such a complicated form here from its +relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.<a id="footnotetag703" name="footnotetag703"></a><a href="#footnote703"><sup>703</sup></a> The +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page342" id="page342"></a>[pg 342]</span> +Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and +if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual +occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect +to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen +raised the thought of the unchangeability of God to be the norm +of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate +Logos any significance for "Gnostics." To these Christ merely +appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the +Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is +the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely +requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.<a id="footnotetag704" name="footnotetag704"></a><a href="#footnote704"><sup>704</sup></a> The +Gospel too only teaches the "shadow of the secrets of Christ;" +but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, "clearly +places before men's minds all things concerning the Son of God +himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things +of which his acts were the riddles" (σαφως παριστησι τοις νοουσι +τα παντα ενωπιον περι αυτου του 'υιου του Θεου, και τα παρισταμενα +μυστηρια 'υπο των λογων αυτου, τα τε πραγματα, ων αινιγματα ησαν +'αι πραξεις αυτου).<a id="footnotetag705" name="footnotetag705"></a><a href="#footnote705"><sup>705</sup></a> No doubt the true theology based on revelation +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page343" id="page343"></a>[pg 343]</span> +makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, +and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; +but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen's system, whilst +the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy +of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. +In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical +Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown +off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history +or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, +they have only a supramundane one.</p> + +<p>This necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric +and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind +the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself +is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, +which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school +of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because +he saw that the mass of Christians were unable to grasp the +deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties +of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of +adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought +to the <i>regula fidei</i>, he displayed the most masterly skill. He +succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though +the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, +he could find support for it on the steps of the <i>regula +fidei</i>, already developed by Irenæus into the history of salvation.<a id="footnotetag706" name="footnotetag706"></a><a href="#footnote706"><sup>706</sup></a> +The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, +monistic, but, as the material world, though created by God out +of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification +for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the +system, as far as its practical application is concerned.<a id="footnotetag707" name="footnotetag707"></a><a href="#footnote707"><sup>707</sup></a> The prevailing +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page344" id="page344"></a>[pg 344]</span> +contrast is that between the one transcendent essence +and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity +lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the +one hand, it belongs to God as the unfolding of his essence, +and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with God. +This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems +and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the +present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page345" id="page345"></a>[pg 345]</span> +and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human +spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without +allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption +that created spirits can freely determine their own course is +therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is +one of its main presuppositions<a id="footnotetag708" name="footnotetag708"></a><a href="#footnote708"><sup>708</sup></a> and is so boldly developed as +to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of God. But, as from +the empirical point of view the knot is tied for every man at +the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem +is not created by each human being as the result of his own +independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must +retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain +hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of +Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It +contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of God and his unfoldings +or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, +(3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.<a id="footnotetag709" name="footnotetag709"></a><a href="#footnote709"><sup>709</sup></a> Like Denis, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page346" id="page346"></a>[pg 346]</span> +however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of +method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, +Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen's fundamental +idea is "the original indestructible unity of God and all spiritual +essence." From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit +after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being +in God. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy +of Origen.</p> + +<p>The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are +the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations +of Greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have +only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to +offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves +in the fulfilment of prophecy.<a id="footnotetag710" name="footnotetag710"></a><a href="#footnote710"><sup>710</sup></a> On the other hand Origen +assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition +to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted +this deeper wisdom to a few;<a id="footnotetag711" name="footnotetag711"></a><a href="#footnote711"><sup>711</sup></a> but, as a correct Church theologian, +he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page347" id="page347"></a>[pg 347]</span> +methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed +in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered +with.<a id="footnotetag712" name="footnotetag712"></a><a href="#footnote712"><sup>712</sup></a> But it is the carrying out of this rule that really +forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed +and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to +Origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present +problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads +to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. +other passages), as well as to fellowship with God, since it rests +on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined +by fear and hope of reward so, as "uninformed and irrational +faith" (πιστις ιδιωτικη and αλογος), it only leads to a "somatic +Christianity" (Χριστιανισμος σωματικος). It is the task of theology, +however, to decipher "spiritual Christianity" +(Χριστιανισμος πνευματικος) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to +knowledge and clear vision. This is effected by the method of +Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of +God.<a id="footnotetag713" name="footnotetag713"></a><a href="#footnote713"><sup>713</sup></a> The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the +cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, +as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic +element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the +first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of +mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. +But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated +as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be assumed in all +cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of God, +morality, the law of nature, or reason.<a id="footnotetag714" name="footnotetag714"></a><a href="#footnote714"><sup>714</sup></a> Here one must judge +(see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to +incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense +is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially +most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily +find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page348" id="page348"></a>[pg 348]</span> +passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic +sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an +assertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in +plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a +positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, +once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely +over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain +for him clear vision and independent possession.<a id="footnotetag715" name="footnotetag715"></a><a href="#footnote715"><sup>715</sup></a> When the +Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders +by which he has reached this height.<a id="footnotetag716" name="footnotetag716"></a><a href="#footnote716"><sup>716</sup></a> He is then inwardly united +with God's Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. +In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal +value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed +that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the +receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his +relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ +the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles +did not possess the same inspiration as he,<a id="footnotetag717" name="footnotetag717"></a><a href="#footnote717"><sup>717</sup></a> and among the +Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration +are again to be assumed. Here Origen set the example of +making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles +and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an +assumption through which the later Church down to our time +has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that +she could not satisfy.<a id="footnotetag718" name="footnotetag718"></a><a href="#footnote718"><sup>718</sup></a></p> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page349" id="page349"></a>[pg 349]</span> + +<p>THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.<a id="footnotetag719" name="footnotetag719"></a><a href="#footnote719"><sup>719</sup></a> +The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created +spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable +spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness, +so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being +caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its +essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This +fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by +Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of God. +As the One, God is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order +in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, +God is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, +and that therefore have no real existence, because they have +not their principle in themselves, but testify: "We have not made +ourselves." As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, God is contrasted +with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to +get back to him from whom it received its origin. The One is +something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, +and the longing of that which is created point back to the One, +who can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In +sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the +absolute causality of God, and, in spite of all abstractions in +determining the essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and +will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, +Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).<a id="footnotetag720" name="footnotetag720"></a><a href="#footnote720"><sup>720</sup></a> The created is one thing +and the Self-existent is another, but both are connected together; +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page350" id="page350"></a>[pg 350]</span> +as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, +so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. +The Self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute +that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom +he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, +and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek +philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a +doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink +from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will +be seen, he never thinks of God without revelation, and because +all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of +God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially everywhere; +but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither +encompasses nor is encompassed. Nor is he diffused through the +universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also +he is removed from space itself.<a id="footnotetag721" name="footnotetag721"></a><a href="#footnote721"><sup>721</sup></a> But the omniscience and +omnipotence of God have a limit, which indeed, according to +Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place +his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only +do what he wills;<a id="footnotetag722" name="footnotetag722"></a><a href="#footnote722"><sup>722</sup></a> secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot +produce things containing an inward contradiction: God can do +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page351" id="page351"></a>[pg 351]</span> +nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the +highest sense<a id="footnotetag723" name="footnotetag723"></a><a href="#footnote723"><sup>723</sup></a>—thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in +itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the +extent of everything created must be limited<a id="footnotetag724" name="footnotetag724"></a><a href="#footnote724"><sup>724</sup></a>—fourthly, by the +impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing +elements.<a id="footnotetag725" name="footnotetag725"></a><a href="#footnote725"><sup>725</sup></a> Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is +specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by God +himself. God has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but +he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do +not happen because he knows them.<a id="footnotetag726" name="footnotetag726"></a><a href="#footnote726"><sup>726</sup></a> That the divine purpose +should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature +of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of +God. Like Irenæus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed +the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to +the Marcionites.<a id="footnotetag727" name="footnotetag727"></a><a href="#footnote727"><sup>727</sup></a> But his exposition is different. In his eyes +goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can +and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to +him identical. God rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. +That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct +themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when God +punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Passions, anger, and +the like do not exist in God, nor any plurality of virtues; but, +as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, +Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition +to the Marcionites, who declared Christ and the Father +of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, +he argued that, on the contrary, God (the foundation of the world) +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page352" id="page352"></a>[pg 352]</span> +is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, +is just.<a id="footnotetag728" name="footnotetag728"></a><a href="#footnote728"><sup>728</sup></a></p> + +<p>From the perfect goodness of God Origen infers that he reveals +or communicates himself, from his immutability that he <i>always</i> +reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication +of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept "God". +But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same +philosophy, Origen assumed that the One, in becoming the +Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only +effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and +once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring +for himself an adequate organ—<i>the Logos</i>. The content of +Origen's teaching about this Logos was not essentially different +from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; +only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the +hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the Monarchians) more +clearly and precisely stated.<a id="footnotetag729" name="footnotetag729"></a><a href="#footnote729"><sup>729</sup></a> Nevertheless the personal independence +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page353" id="page353"></a>[pg 353]</span> +of the Logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as +in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness +of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one +hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other +the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God. +The following are the most important propositions.<a id="footnotetag730" name="footnotetag730"></a><a href="#footnote730"><sup>730</sup></a> The Logos +who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 +and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image<a id="footnotetag731" name="footnotetag731"></a><a href="#footnote731"><sup>731</sup></a> of God. He is the Wisdom +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page354" id="page354"></a>[pg 354]</span> +of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible +image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal +in him<a id="footnotetag732" name="footnotetag732"></a><a href="#footnote732"><sup>732</sup></a> and he is therefore really God, not αυτοθεος, nor 'ο Θεος, +nor αναρχος αρχη ("beginningless beginning"), but the second +God.<a id="footnotetag733" name="footnotetag733"></a><a href="#footnote733"><sup>733</sup></a> But, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that +is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this +respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however, +is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an +image of the Father's perfection).<a id="footnotetag734" name="footnotetag734"></a><a href="#footnote734"><sup>734</sup></a> Accordingly this deity is not +a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent +essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity +rather constitutes his essence: 'ο σοτηρ ου κατα μετουσιαν, αλλα +κατ' ουσιαν εστι Θεοσ<a id="footnotetag735" name="footnotetag735"></a><a href="#footnote735"><sup>735</sup></a> ("the Saviour is not God by communication, +but in his essence"). From this it follows that he shares in +the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly +'ομοουσιος ("the same in substance with the Father") +or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, +is engendered from the essence of the Father.<a id="footnotetag736" name="footnotetag736"></a><a href="#footnote736"><sup>736</sup></a> But having +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page355" id="page355"></a>[pg 355]</span> +proceeded, like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with God; +there was not a time when he was not,<a id="footnotetag737" name="footnotetag737"></a><a href="#footnote737"><sup>737</sup></a> nay, even this expression +is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think +of God without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his +begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only +once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the +Son is always being begotten of the Father.<a id="footnotetag738" name="footnotetag738"></a><a href="#footnote738"><sup>738</sup></a> It is the theology +of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up:<a id="footnotetag739" name="footnotetag739"></a><a href="#footnote739"><sup>739</sup></a> +εις κυριος, μονος εκ μονου, θεος εκ θεου, χαρακτηρ και εικων της +θεοτητος, λογος ενεργος, σοφια της των 'ολων συστασεως περιεκτικη +και δυναμις της 'ολης κτισεως ποιητικη, 'υιος αληθινος αληθινου πατρος, +αορατος αορατου και αφθαρτος αφθαρτου και αθανατος αθανατου και +αιδιος αιδιου. ("One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress +and image of Godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the +entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, +true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible +of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, +the eternal of the eternal"). The begetting is an indescribable +act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is +no emanation—the expression προβολη is not found, so far as I +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page356" id="page356"></a>[pg 356]</span> +know<a id="footnotetag740" name="footnotetag740"></a><a href="#footnote740"><sup>740</sup></a>—but is rather to be designated as an act of the will +arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason +is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced +is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal +force of the Father, though this still appears to be the case in +some passages of Clement, but he is the "sapientia dei substantialiter +subsistens"<a id="footnotetag741" name="footnotetag741"></a><a href="#footnote741"><sup>741</sup></a> ("the wisdom of God substantially existing") +"figura expressa substantial patris" ("express image of the Father's +substance"), "virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens" ("a +second force existing in its own characteristic fashion"). He is, +and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an "animal +vivens" with an independent existence.<a id="footnotetag742" name="footnotetag742"></a><a href="#footnote742"><sup>742</sup></a> He is another person,<a id="footnotetag743" name="footnotetag743"></a><a href="#footnote743"><sup>743</sup></a> +namely, the second person in number.<a id="footnotetag744" name="footnotetag744"></a><a href="#footnote744"><sup>744</sup></a> But here already begins +Origen's second train of thought which limits the first that we +have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its "first +cause" (πρωτον αιτιον) in God, the Son is "that which is caused" +(αιτιατον), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends +in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, +the Son is no longer an absolute <i>simplex</i> like the Father.<a id="footnotetag745" name="footnotetag745"></a><a href="#footnote745"><sup>745</sup></a> He +is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the +Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has +an inward relation to the world, which is itself without +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page357" id="page357"></a>[pg 357]</span> +beginning.<a id="footnotetag746" name="footnotetag746"></a><a href="#footnote746"><sup>746</sup></a> As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied—which +moreover dominates the system—and the particular +contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way +to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son +is not only called κτισμα and δημιουργημα, but all the utterances +about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere +find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a different +kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances +lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity +between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. +We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in Christ +to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from God's standpoint, +the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and <i>subordinated</i> to +him.<a id="footnotetag747" name="footnotetag747"></a><a href="#footnote747"><sup>747</sup></a> The Son stands between the uncreated One and the +created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of +self-existence he does not possess it.<a id="footnotetag748" name="footnotetag748"></a><a href="#footnote748"><sup>748</sup></a> It is evident why Origen +was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it +was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for +which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the +Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative +than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher +that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, +he could unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of +Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, +but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.<a id="footnotetag749" name="footnotetag749"></a><a href="#footnote749"><sup>749</sup></a></p> + +<p>In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason +alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the +Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. +All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is +equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that +inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page358" id="page358"></a>[pg 358]</span> +whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be +considered the Son of God or not.<a id="footnotetag750" name="footnotetag750"></a><a href="#footnote750"><sup>750</sup></a> As the third hypostasis, Origen +reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him +after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive +proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became +the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter as +the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate +to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through +the Son.<a id="footnotetag751" name="footnotetag751"></a><a href="#footnote751"><sup>751</sup></a> Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered +quantitatively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most +important consideration, the Spirit's sphere of action is the +smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son +has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, +that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect. +Father, Son, and Spirit form a τριας ("triad")<a id="footnotetag752" name="footnotetag752"></a><a href="#footnote752"><sup>752</sup></a> to which +nothing may be compared; they are equal in dignity and honour, +and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not +one of Rufinus' corrections, Origen said<a id="footnotetag753" name="footnotetag753"></a><a href="#footnote753"><sup>753</sup></a>: "Nihil in trinitate maius +minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione +sua teneat universa"<a id="footnotetag754" name="footnotetag754"></a><a href="#footnote754"><sup>754</sup></a> ("nothing in the Trinity is to be called +greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his +parts by word and reason"). But, as in Origen's sense the union +of these only exists because the Father alone is the "source of +deity" (πηγη της θεοτητος) and principle of the other two hypostases, +the Trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, +in accordance with a "subtle emanation idea", has degrees +within it. This Trinity, which in the strict sense remains a +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page359" id="page359"></a>[pg 359]</span> +Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence +of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery +beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling +or at least the greatest narrowness of conception.</p> + +<p>The idea of createdness was already more closely associated +with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still +clearer fashion than the Son himself the transition to the series +of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are +in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage +after the Holy Spirit. In assuming the existence of such beings +as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed +to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly +acknowledged in the Church.<a id="footnotetag755" name="footnotetag755"></a><a href="#footnote755"><sup>755</sup></a> With Clement even the association +of the Son and Holy Ghost with the great angelic spirits is as +yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions.<a id="footnotetag756" name="footnotetag756"></a><a href="#footnote756"><sup>756</sup></a> Origen +was more cautious in this respect.<a id="footnotetag757" name="footnotetag757"></a><a href="#footnote757"><sup>757</sup></a> The world of spirits appears +to him as a series of well-arranged, graded energies, as the +representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, +that is, progress (προκοπη).<a id="footnotetag758" name="footnotetag758"></a><a href="#footnote758"><sup>758</sup></a> Growth is conditioned by freedom: +"<i>omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si +secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, +si rationem recti declinet</i>"<a id="footnotetag759" name="footnotetag759"></a><a href="#footnote759"><sup>759</sup></a> ("every rational creature is capable +of meriting praise or blame—praise, if it advance to better things +according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid +the right course"). As unchangeableness and permanence are +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page360" id="page360"></a>[pg 360]</span> +characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created +spirit.<a id="footnotetag760" name="footnotetag760"></a><a href="#footnote760"><sup>760</sup></a> In this thesis Origen goes beyond the assumption of +the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other +proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion +of the divine (because it is changeable<a id="footnotetag761" name="footnotetag761"></a><a href="#footnote761"><sup>761</sup></a>); but in reality freedom, +as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to +determine their own destiny <i>for a time</i>. In the end, however, +they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual +is indestructible. <i>Sub specie æternitatis</i>, then, the mere +communication of the divine element to the created spirit<a id="footnotetag762" name="footnotetag762"></a><a href="#footnote762"><sup>762</sup></a> is +<i>not</i> a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the +absolute necessity of the created spirit's developing itself merely +appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this +conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that +the freedom of <i>naturæ rationabiles</i> consisted in the <i>possibilitas +utriusque</i>, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from +this freedom. To the <i>naturæ rationabiles</i>, which have different +<i>species</i> and <i>ordines</i>, human souls also belong. The whole of +them were created from all eternity; for God would not be +almighty unless he had always produced everything<a id="footnotetag763" name="footnotetag763"></a><a href="#footnote763"><sup>763</sup></a>; in virtue +of their origin they are equal, for their original community with +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page361" id="page361"></a>[pg 361]</span> +the Logos permits of no diversity<a id="footnotetag764" name="footnotetag764"></a><a href="#footnote764"><sup>764</sup></a>; but, on the other hand, they +have received different tasks and their development is consequently +different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they +are burdened with a kind of bodily nature,<a id="footnotetag765" name="footnotetag765"></a><a href="#footnote765"><sup>765</sup></a> for it is only the +Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a +necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being +created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.<a id="footnotetag766" name="footnotetag766"></a><a href="#footnote766"><sup>766</sup></a> Now +Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might +have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly +important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal +development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. +The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the <i>naturæ +rationabiles</i>, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their +growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in +the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition +in περι αρχων II. 9. 2).</p> + +<p>THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. All +created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they +attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.<a id="footnotetag767" name="footnotetag767"></a><a href="#footnote767"><sup>767</sup></a> +In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, +laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an +endless multiplicity of ways.<a id="footnotetag768" name="footnotetag768"></a><a href="#footnote768"><sup>768</sup></a> The disciplining and purifying +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page362" id="page362"></a>[pg 362]</span> +of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world +was created by God.<a id="footnotetag769" name="footnotetag769"></a><a href="#footnote769"><sup>769</sup></a> It is therefore a place of purification, +ruled and harmoniously arranged by God's wisdom.<a id="footnotetag770" name="footnotetag770"></a><a href="#footnote770"><sup>770</sup></a> Each +member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of +material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the +Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by +that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, +guide the world, are servants of God (αγγελοι), and have +bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe +(stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of +men) are banished into material bodies. Those that have altogether +turned against God have received very dark bodies, indescribably +ugly, though not visible. Men therefore are placed between the +angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The +moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made +harder by the demons, but lightened by the angels,<a id="footnotetag771" name="footnotetag771"></a><a href="#footnote771"><sup>771</sup></a> for these +spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page363" id="page363"></a>[pg 363]</span> +the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject +to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the +guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for +itself a limit in freedom.<a id="footnotetag772" name="footnotetag772"></a><a href="#footnote772"><sup>772</sup></a> Evil, however, and it is in this idea +that Origen's great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the +end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing +real; it is "nonexistent" (ουχ ον) and "unreal" (ανυποστατον).<a id="footnotetag773" name="footnotetag773"></a><a href="#footnote773"><sup>773</sup></a> +For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God +must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his <i>being</i> is +concerned, resulted from God's will, cannot always remain a +devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also +the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate +phase.<a id="footnotetag774" name="footnotetag774"></a><a href="#footnote774"><sup>774</sup></a></p> + +<p>According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in +Origen's view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same +extent as he is with the other Fathers,<a id="footnotetag775" name="footnotetag775"></a><a href="#footnote775"><sup>775</sup></a> assumes the following +form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, +which has fallen from the world above. This is united with +the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes +in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page364" id="page364"></a>[pg 364]</span> +because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced +the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, +because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of +action opposed to God, and yet something relatively spiritual +must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we +also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself +been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed +into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because +on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a +course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational +and free in man must be shown to be something remaining +intact.<a id="footnotetag776" name="footnotetag776"></a><a href="#footnote776"><sup>776</sup></a> Man's struggle consists in the endeavour of the two +factors forming his constitution to gain control of his sphere of +action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains <i>likeness</i> to +God; the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his +indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.<a id="footnotetag777" name="footnotetag777"></a><a href="#footnote777"><sup>777</sup></a> Victory, +however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts +and passions.<a id="footnotetag778" name="footnotetag778"></a><a href="#footnote778"><sup>778</sup></a> No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for +nothing good is without God,<a id="footnotetag779" name="footnotetag779"></a><a href="#footnote779"><sup>779</sup></a> but in such a way as not to +interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page365" id="page365"></a>[pg 365]</span> +matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are +met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.<a id="footnotetag780" name="footnotetag780"></a><a href="#footnote780"><sup>780</sup></a> +Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the +weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.<a id="footnotetag781" name="footnotetag781"></a><a href="#footnote781"><sup>781</sup></a> The +idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always +preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a +mere appearance,<a id="footnotetag782" name="footnotetag782"></a><a href="#footnote782"><sup>782</sup></a> it does not avail against the constitution of +man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.<a id="footnotetag783" name="footnotetag783"></a><a href="#footnote783"><sup>783</sup></a> All +must be sinners at first,<a id="footnotetag784" name="footnotetag784"></a><a href="#footnote784"><sup>784</sup></a> for that is as much their destiny as +is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man's +material nature.<a id="footnotetag785" name="footnotetag785"></a><a href="#footnote785"><sup>785</sup></a></p> + + +<p>In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: "God +wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves" (ο Θεος 'ημας εξ +'ημων αυτων βουλεται σωζεσθαι) is quite as true as the other statement +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page366" id="page366"></a>[pg 366]</span> +that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship +with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.<a id="footnotetag786" name="footnotetag786"></a><a href="#footnote786"><sup>786</sup></a> They +moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various +stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed +himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to +all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness +to all men, however different their capacities may be. +Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, +from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, +have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest +stage, the "spiritual Church", there is an <i>eternal Gospel</i> which +is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This +eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God's highest +intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.<a id="footnotetag787" name="footnotetag787"></a><a href="#footnote787"><sup>787</sup></a> These +elements compose Origen's doctrine of revelation in general and +of Christ in particular.<a id="footnotetag788" name="footnotetag788"></a><a href="#footnote788"><sup>788</sup></a> They presuppose the sighing of the +creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried +on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and +demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute +the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do +so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos +has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen's teaching +concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on +the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes +a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical +Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their +own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, +were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling +and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation +the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed +himself among all men. But all these undertakings did not yet +lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page367" id="page367"></a>[pg 367]</span> +lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the +spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos +that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case +of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons +and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of +Valentinus. He had, as the "Godman," to make a sacrifice which +represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which +put an end to the devil's sovereignty over men's souls, and in +short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to +all.<a id="footnotetag789" name="footnotetag789"></a><a href="#footnote789"><sup>789</sup></a> To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page368" id="page368"></a>[pg 368]</span> +he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart +in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might +now partake of his life and themselves become divine through +being interwoven with the divine essence. Here, as in the +former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, +as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith +and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact—namely, +the redeeming death of Christ,—so, in the higher stage, it is +accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward +beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of +the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal +Gospel.<a id="footnotetag790" name="footnotetag790"></a><a href="#footnote790"><sup>790</sup></a> What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page369" id="page369"></a>[pg 369]</span> +less valuable appearance—namely, the historical work of Christ—was +to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view +it as <i>the</i> truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as <i>a</i> +truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of +Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more +limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the +perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal +life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions +and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united +both the theses of the Gnostics and those of orthodox Christians. +The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, +the restoration of the created spirit to God and participation in +the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits +and demons, the death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point +of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.<a id="footnotetag791" name="footnotetag791"></a><a href="#footnote791"><sup>791</sup></a></p> + +<p>On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed +his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the +Redeemer, this Christ, the God-man, could not but be as many-sided +as redemption is. Only through that masterly art of +reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea +which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could +there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous +person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol +of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, +did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced +is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very +speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances +about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being +the highest one. The whole "humanity" of the Redeemer together +with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect +one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which +became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect +one, and this remark also applies to Clement's perfect Gnostic, +thus knows no "Christology", but only an indwelling of the +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page370" id="page370"></a>[pg 370]</span> +Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same +Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity +of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The +former is no question, because speculation, starting above and +proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos +and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in +Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a +matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made +himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect +the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and +it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and +to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, +however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, +and the "Ebionite" view on the other.<a id="footnotetag792" name="footnotetag792"></a><a href="#footnote792"><sup>792</sup></a> His doctrine was +accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos +could not unite with matter, because this as μη ον would have +depotentiated him. A medium was required. The Logos did +not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the +soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created +spirit that had never fallen from God, but always remained in +faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul +in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then +was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never +renounced fellowship with him. It was selected by the Logos +for the purpose of incarnation and that because of its moral dignity. +The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page371" id="page371"></a>[pg 371]</span> +connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real +union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing +effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, +then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos +preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers +and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a +real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and +unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human +one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude +its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the Logos wishes +to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos +was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, +in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of +men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of +Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united +himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves +to him. But with none did the union become so close as with +the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During +his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees +and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen +contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the +incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a series of +stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with +as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely +united together in Christ. This union (κοινωνια ενωσις, ανακρασις) +was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created man, +Jesus, the Son of God; and on the other hand has called the +Son of God the Son of Man. After the resurrection and ascension +the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely +received into the Godhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.<a id="footnotetag793" name="footnotetag793"></a><a href="#footnote793"><sup>793</sup></a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page372" id="page372"></a>[pg 372]</span> +In this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible +"heresies":—the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man—but +all men are heavenly;—the Adoptianist ("Ebionite") Christology—but +the Logos as a person stands behind it;—the conception +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page373" id="page373"></a>[pg 373]</span> +of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation +of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of +fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of +them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some +extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the +slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that +not a stone of it admits of being a hair's-breadth broader or +narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely +unemployed by Origen, that is, the modalistic view. Origen is +the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity +frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he +made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in +the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more +manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. +We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two +natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become +gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression +"two natures" is not quite foreign to Origen.<a id="footnotetag794" name="footnotetag794"></a><a href="#footnote794"><sup>794</sup></a> The Logos +retains his human nature eternally,<a id="footnotetag795" name="footnotetag795"></a><a href="#footnote795"><sup>795</sup></a> but only in the same sense +in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection.</p> + +<p>The significance which this Christological attempt possessed +for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the +energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ's +<i>humanity</i>, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a +creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a +meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen's +Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, +by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important +advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology +in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity +of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies +this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page374" id="page374"></a>[pg 374]</span> +indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt +to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice +to the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher +probably heeded what Irenæus set forth respecting Christ as +the second Adam, the <i>recapitulatur generis humani</i>; whereas +Origen's speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the +Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the +same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the God-man +from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise +against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work +and undertook to show, and this not merely by help of the +proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity applied to the +historical Christ.<a id="footnotetag796" name="footnotetag796"></a><a href="#footnote796"><sup>796</sup></a> But Origen's conception of Christ's person +as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical +theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like +Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to +show that in Christ's case a human subject with his will and +feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he +can say that the union of the divine and human natures had +its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this +beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example +of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be +given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his +<i>work</i>, but the <i>person</i> of Christ which cannot be known to any +but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real +redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly +blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically +transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise +the strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the +highest value of Christ's person lies in the fact that the Deity +has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his +essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a +man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable +of becoming entirely God's. At bottom there is nothing obscure +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page375" id="page375"></a>[pg 375]</span> +and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will +and in the feelings through knowledge.<a id="footnotetag797" name="footnotetag797"></a><a href="#footnote797"><sup>797</sup></a></p> + +<p>This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal +attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace +follows. As in Christ's case his human soul gradually united +itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected +its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to +his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend +actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of +the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles +that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with +faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own +work.<a id="footnotetag798" name="footnotetag798"></a><a href="#footnote798"><sup>798</sup></a> Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, +and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to +the contemplation of the <i>substantiæ rationabiles</i>, the Logos, the +knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity.<a id="footnotetag799" name="footnotetag799"></a><a href="#footnote799"><sup>799</sup></a> +She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly +passed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, +she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires at +every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.<a id="footnotetag800" name="footnotetag800"></a><a href="#footnote800"><sup>800</sup></a> Thus a +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page376" id="page376"></a>[pg 376]</span> +union of grace and freedom takes place within the sphere of +the latter, till the "contemplative life" is reached, that joyous +ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, +associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become +a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the +Deity.<a id="footnotetag801" name="footnotetag801"></a><a href="#footnote801"><sup>801</sup></a> In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense +of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;<a id="footnotetag802" name="footnotetag802"></a><a href="#footnote802"><sup>802</sup></a> still +baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. Moreover, in +connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (God +as love, God as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we +find in both Clement and Origen passages which, free from the +trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching +of the Gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way.<a id="footnotetag803" name="footnotetag803"></a><a href="#footnote803"><sup>803</sup></a> It is evident +that in Origen's view there can be no visible means of grace; +but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the +symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not +a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the +common man they are indispensable.<a id="footnotetag804" name="footnotetag804"></a><a href="#footnote804"><sup>804</sup></a> In the same way he brought +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page377" id="page377"></a>[pg 377]</span> +into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors +with God, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and +counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a +heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an +important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high +priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great +reserve.</p> + +<p>Origen's eschatology occupies a middle position between that +of Irenæus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is +more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenæus, +Christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though +in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; +and, according to Valentinus, Christ separates what is illegitimately +united and saves the spirits alone, Origen believes that all spirits +will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its +individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when +sensuous matter disappears of itself. Here he rejects all sensuous +eschatological expectations.<a id="footnotetag805" name="footnotetag805"></a><a href="#footnote805"><sup>805</sup></a> He accepted the formula, "resurrection +of the flesh", only because it was contained in the +doctrine of the Church; but, on the strength of 1 Cor. XV. 44, +he interpreted it as the rising of a "corpus spiritale", which +will lack all material attributes and even all the members that +have sensuous functions, and which will beam with radiant light +like the angels and stars.<a id="footnotetag806" name="footnotetag806"></a><a href="#footnote806"><sup>806</sup></a> Rejecting the doctrine that souls +sleep,<a id="footnotetag807" name="footnotetag807"></a><a href="#footnote807"><sup>807</sup></a> Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately +enter Paradise,<a id="footnotetag808" name="footnotetag808"></a><a href="#footnote808"><sup>808</sup></a> and that souls not yet purified pass into a state +of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, +is to be conceived as a place of purification.<a id="footnotetag809" name="footnotetag809"></a><a href="#footnote809"><sup>809</sup></a> In this way also +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page378" id="page378"></a>[pg 378]</span> +Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church +doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like +Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and +figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.<a id="footnotetag810" name="footnotetag810"></a><a href="#footnote810"><sup>810</sup></a> In the +end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay, even the demons, are +purified and brought back to God by the Logos-Christ,<a id="footnotetag811" name="footnotetag811"></a><a href="#footnote811"><sup>811</sup></a> after +they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.<a id="footnotetag812" name="footnotetag812"></a><a href="#footnote812"><sup>812</sup></a> +Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: "for the +common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished."<a id="footnotetag813" name="footnotetag813"></a><a href="#footnote813"><sup>813</sup></a></p> + +<p>This system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek +philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical Christianity. If one +undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from +the standpoint given in the "contemplative life", little else would +be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the +ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.<a id="footnotetag814" name="footnotetag814"></a><a href="#footnote814"><sup>814</sup></a> +The method according to which Origen preserved whatever +appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant +than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing +everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a +radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient +civilisation, what would have been left to us? The fact of a +strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the +traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was +the condition—to use Origen's own language—that enabled a +new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its +course.</p> + +<p>During the following century Origen's theology at first acted +in its entirety. But it likewise attained this position of influence, +because some important propositions could be detached from +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page379" id="page379"></a>[pg 379]</span> +their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one +of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion +that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed +<i>in utramque partem</i>. The several propositions could be made +to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but +also by being grouped. With this the relative unity that distinguishes +the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there +who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the +world? Above all, however, there was something else that +necessarily vanished, as soon as people meddled with the individual +propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. We mean the +frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between +the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the +highest good attainable by the free spirit that is certain of its +God. But a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense +of proportion and relation was no longer to be found.</p> + +<p>In the East the history of dogma and of the Church during +the succeeding centuries is the history of Origen's philosophy. +Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame +the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge<a id="footnotetag815" name="footnotetag815"></a><a href="#footnote815"><sup>815</sup></a> +could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. +But, in the main problem that Origen set for the Church in this +religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded +by the so-called Gnosticism two generations earlier. +He solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith +of the Church with Greek philosophy; and he dealt Gnosticism +its death-blow. This solution, however, was by no means intended +as the doctrine of the Church, since indeed it was rather based +on the distinction between Church belief and theology, and +consequently on the distinction between the common man and +the theologian. But such a distinction was not permanently +tenable in a Church that had to preserve its strength by the +unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated +fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. Hence a +further compromise was necessary. The Greek philosophy, or +speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page380" id="page380"></a>[pg 380]</span> +the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted +both Pistis and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked +on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the +endeavours of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already +found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at +such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was +unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till +it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no +longer heathen or Gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring.</p> + +<p>But, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border +of the third century. At its beginning there were but few +theologians in Christendom who were acquainted with speculation, +even in its fragmentary form. In the course of the century +it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as +the Logos doctrine triumphed in the Church. This development +is the most important that took place in the third century; for +it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into +the compendium of a Greek philosophical system, and it is the +parallel of a contemporaneous transformation of the Church into +a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).</p> + + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote656" name="footnote656"></a><b>Footnote 656:</b><a href="#footnotetag656"> (return) </a><p> +Guericke, De schola, quæ Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. +crit. de l'école d'Alex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, +Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Læmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, +Clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d'Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen +and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879). +Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, Cl. Alex, in seiner Abhängigkeit +von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol. +Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise "Ueber. +die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur,") Hist. Ztschr. N.F., Vol. XII., pp. 455-472 +Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, +1886. Kremmer, De catal. heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Quæst. Musonianæ, +Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen +(Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. +T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880, +p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article +in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864, +and Hort's article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in +scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the +Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hær. 51, Euseb., H. E. V. 28 and my article +"Monarchianismus" in the R.-Encykl. f. protest. Theol. 2nd. ed., Vol. X., pp. +183 ff., 188 ff. On the tendencies even of orthodox Christians to scientific theology +see Tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: "Venio itaque ad +illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, +inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis" etc.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote657" name="footnote657"></a><b>Footnote 657:</b><a href="#footnotetag657"> (return) </a><p> This manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it +suggests the idea that something new was taking place. As a matter of fact the +scientific labours in the Church were merely a continuation of the Gnostic schools +under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now +more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a <i>noli me tangere</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote658" name="footnote658"></a><b>Footnote 658:</b><a href="#footnotetag658"> (return) </a><p> This was begun in the Church by Irenæus and Tertullian and continued by +the Alexandrians. They, however, not only adopted theologoumena from Paulinism, +but also acquired from Paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as +a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote659" name="footnote659"></a><b>Footnote 659:</b><a href="#footnotetag659"> (return) </a><p> We are not able to form a clear idea of the school of Justin. In the year +180 the schools of the Valentinians, Carpocratians, Tatian etc. were all outside the +Church.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote660" name="footnote660"></a><b>Footnote 660:</b><a href="#footnotetag660"> (return) </a><p> +On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient., T. III., P. II., p. 924; +Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; Kihn, Die Bedeutung der +antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, p. 54. +About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a +disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the +Holy Scriptures.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote661" name="footnote661"></a><b>Footnote 661:</b><a href="#footnotetag661"> (return) </a><p> +Overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: "The origin of the Alexandrian +school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd +century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part +of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this +period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the +Church as well as those of the Alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was +the first attempt to formulate the relationship of Christianity to secular science." We +are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and +teaching of Pantænus (with regard to him see Zahn, "Forschungen" Vol. III., +pp. 64 ff. 77 ff). We can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th +Book of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and from the works of Clement and Origen.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote662" name="footnote662"></a><b>Footnote 662:</b><a href="#footnotetag662"> (return) </a><p> On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. +31. As to his relations with Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had, +moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the +connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantænus, Clement, and +Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen +were disciples of Pantænus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote663" name="footnote663"></a><b>Footnote 663:</b><a href="#footnotetag663"> (return) </a><p>See my article "Heraklas" in the Real-Encyklopadie.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote664" name="footnote664"></a><b>Footnote 664:</b><a href="#footnotetag664"> (return) </a><p> We have the most complete materials in Zahn, "Forschungen" Vol. III. +pp. 17-176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pædagogus, +Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clement's remaining +works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive +his scientific labours were.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote665" name="footnote665"></a><b>Footnote 665:</b><a href="#footnotetag665"> (return) </a><p> +This applies quite as much to the old principles of Christian morality as to +the traditional faith. With respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: "Quis +dives salvetur", and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pædagogus.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote666" name="footnote666"></a><b>Footnote 666:</b><a href="#footnotetag666"> (return) </a><p> Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck, +l.c., p. 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters +of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here +both Pantænus and Clement are called "Father", but whilst the former receives +the title, 'ο μακαριος 'ως αληθως και κυριος , the latter is called: +'ο 'ιερος Κλημης, κυριος μου γενομενος και ωφελησας με.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote667" name="footnote667"></a><b>Footnote 667:</b><a href="#footnotetag667"> (return) </a><p> +Strom. VI. 14, 109: πλεον εστιν του πιστευσαι το γνωναι, Pistis is γνωσις +συντομος των κατεπειγοντων (VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is +αποδειξις των δια πιστεως παρειλημμενων τη πιστει εποικοδομουμενη (l.c.), +τελειωσις +ανθρωπου (l.c.), πιστις επιστημονικη (II. II. 48).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote668" name="footnote668"></a><b>Footnote 668:</b><a href="#footnotetag668"> (return) </a><p> +We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis +where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by +dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of +ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. +See Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72: Ουδε γαρ ενδει τι αυτω προς εξομωιοσιν τω καλω και +αγαθω ειναι ουδε αρα φιλει τινα την κοινην ταυτην φιλιαν, αλλ' αγαπα τον κτιστην +δια των κτισματων. Ουτ' ουν επιθυμια και ορεξει τινι περιπιπτει ουτε ενδεης εστι +κατα γε την ψυχην των αλλων τινος συνων ηδη δι' αγαπης τω εραστω, ω δη ωκειωται +κατα την 'αιρεσιν και τη εξ ασκησεος 'εξει, τουτω προσεχεστερον συνεγγιζων, +μακαριος ων δια την των αγαθων περιουσιαν, ωστε 'ενεκα γε τουτων εξομοιουσθαι +βιαζεται τω διδασκαλω εις απαθειαν. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113: +'ουτως δυναμιν +λαβουσα κυριακην 'η ψυχη μελετα ειναι Θεος, κακον μεν ουδεν αλλο πλην αγνοιας +ειναι νομιζουσα. The whole 7th Book should be read.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote669" name="footnote669"></a><b>Footnote 669:</b><a href="#footnotetag669"> (return) </a><p> Philo is quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use +of without acknowledgment. See the copious citations in Siegfried, Philo von +Alexandrien, pp. 343-351. In addition to this Clement made use of many Greek +philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, <i>e.g.</i>, Musonius.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote670" name="footnote670"></a><b>Footnote 670:</b><a href="#footnotetag670"> (return) </a><p> +Like Philo and Justin, Clement also no doubt at times asserts that the Greek +philosophers pilfered from the Old Testament; but see Strom. I. 5. 28 sq.: παντων +μεν αιτιος των καλων 'ο Θεος, αλλα των μεν κατα προηγουμενον 'ως της τε διαθηκης +της παλαιας και της νεας, των δε κατ' επακολουθημα 'ως της φιλοσοφιας. ταχα δε +και προηγουμενως τοις 'Ελλησιν εδοθη τοτε πριν η τον κυριον καλεσαι και τους +'Ελληνας. επαιδαγωγει γαρ και αυτη το 'Ελληνικον 'ως 'ο νομος τους 'Εβραιους εις +Χριστον.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote671" name="footnote671"></a><b>Footnote 671:</b><a href="#footnotetag671"> (return) </a><p>See Bratke's instructive treatise cited above.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote672" name="footnote672"></a><b>Footnote 672:</b><a href="#footnotetag672"> (return) </a><p> +The fact that Clement appeals in support of the Gnosis to an esoteric tradition +(Strom. VI. 7. 61: VI. 8. 68: VII. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging +as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in +determining the ultimate truth of things. The existence of sacred writings containing +all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to +be guaranteed by divine communication. But no doubt the ultimate cause of this, +as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion +do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can +produce nothing of religious value. As, however, in consequence of philosophical +tradition, neither Philo, nor the Gnostics, nor Clement, nor the Neoplatonists were +able to shake themselves free from the intellectual <i>scheme</i>, those things which—as +they instinctively felt, but did not recognise—could really not be ascertained by +knowledge at all received from them the name of <i>suprarational</i> and were traced +to divine revelation. We may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies +to which Greek philosophy was subjected in Neoplatonism, and the absurdities +into which the Christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of +placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within +the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could +not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empiricism, +scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become +mythology, have their origin here. Knowledge still continues to be viewed as the +highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; +and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote673" name="footnote673"></a><b>Footnote 673:</b><a href="#footnotetag673"> (return) </a><p> Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When +he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with +which he describes Quietism shows that he himself was no Quietist. See on this +point Bigg's third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. "... The silent prayer of the +Quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in Clement. For Clement +shrank from his own conclusions. Though the father of all the Mystics he is no +Mystic himself. He did not enter the 'enchanted garden,' which he opened for +others. If he talks of 'flaying the sacrifice,' of leaving sense behind, of Epopteia, +this is but the parlance of his school. The instrument to which he looks +for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis, +when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plotinus enjoyed +but four times during his acquaintance with Porphyry, which in the experience of +Theresa never lasted more than half an hour. The Gnostic is no Visionary, no +Theurgist, no Antinomian."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote674" name="footnote674"></a><b>Footnote 674:</b><a href="#footnotetag674"> (return) </a><p> What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost audacious +remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: ει γουν τις καθ' 'υποθεσιν προθειη τω γνωστικω +ποτερον 'ελεσθαι βουλοιτο την γνωσιν του Θεου η την σωτηριαν την αιωνιαν, ειν δε +ταυτα κεχωρισμενα παντος μαλλον εν ταυτοτητε οντα, ουδε καθ' οτιουν διστασας +'ελοιτ αν την γνωσιν του Θεου.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote675" name="footnote675"></a><b>Footnote 675:</b><a href="#footnotetag675"> (return) </a><p> Strom. VII. 1. 1. In several passages of his main work Clement refers to +those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of Church +tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. See Strom. +VI. 10. 80: +πολλοι καθαπερ 'οι παιδες τα μορμολυκεια, 'ουτως δεδιασι την 'ελληνικην +φιλοσοφιαν, φοβουμενοι μη απαγαγη αυτους. VI. 11. 93.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote676" name="footnote676"></a><b>Footnote 676:</b><a href="#footnotetag676"> (return) </a><p>Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote677" name="footnote677"></a><b>Footnote 677:</b><a href="#footnotetag677"> (return) </a><p> Clement's authority in the Church continued much longer than that of +Origen. +See Zahn, "Forschungen" III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by +Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated +form from the report of Photius.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote678" name="footnote678"></a><b>Footnote 678:</b><a href="#footnotetag678"> (return) </a><p> +In ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, +because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that +which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologoumenon +to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous +doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified +from Holy Scriptures. Thus the fact that the Holy Scriptures were regarded as a +series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, +and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great +part of his task. Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the history +of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. +We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and necessarily +create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no +use of that theory. In Origen's dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers—so +far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case—the unity lies partly in the +canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles +interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned, +Overbeek (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how +would it have been conceivable that the riches of Holy Scripture, as presented to +the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems +and all, at the first attempt.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote679" name="footnote679"></a><b>Footnote 679:</b><a href="#footnotetag679"> (return) </a><p> +See the treatises of Huetius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes +1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie +d'Origène, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, +Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes +(Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the +Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV. Moller in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, +2nd ed., Vol. XI., pp. 92-109. The special literature is to be found there as +well as in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 151, and Ueberweg, Grundriss der +Geschichte der Philosophie, 5th ed, p. 62 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote680" name="footnote680"></a><b>Footnote 680:</b><a href="#footnotetag680"> (return) </a><p>See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote681" name="footnote681"></a><b>Footnote 681:</b><a href="#footnotetag681"> (return) </a><p> +In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the +feeling for truth had forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen's idea +the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into +what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been +advanced of Origen's having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, however, +did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments +as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. Basilius (Ep. 210 ad +prim. Neocæs) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of Gregory Thaumaturgus, +that sounded suspiciously like Sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not +speaking δογματικως, but αγωνιστικως. Jerome also +(ad Pammach. ep 48, c. 13), +after defending the right of writing γυμναστικως, expressly said that all Greek +philosophers "have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one +place, and deal the blow in another." In the same way, according to him, Origen, +Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris had acted in the dispute with Celsus and +Porphyry. "Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they themselves +think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the +struggle with the heathen."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote682" name="footnote682"></a><b>Footnote 682:</b><a href="#footnotetag682"> (return) </a><p>See, above all, the systematic main work "περι αρχων."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote683" name="footnote683"></a><b>Footnote 683:</b><a href="#footnotetag683"> (return) </a><p> +Many writings of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion +and patience, against the Christians who contest the right of science in the +Church. In the work against Celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged +to abandon the simple Christians. C. Celsus III. 78: V. 14-24 are particularly +instructive.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote684" name="footnote684"></a><b>Footnote 684:</b><a href="#footnotetag684"> (return) </a><p> In this point Origen is already narrower than Clement. Free judgments, such +as were passed by Clement on Greek philosophy, were not, so far as I know, repeated +by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet +he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, <i>e.g.</i>, c. Cels. +VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy +(see the remains of Origen's lost Stromateis and Hom. XIV. in Genes. § 3; other +passages in Redepenning II., p. 324 ff.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote685" name="footnote685"></a><b>Footnote 685:</b><a href="#footnotetag685"> (return) </a><p> +We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of +scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, +that accordingly +Origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific +theology, in addition to the task of remodelling Christianity, thus began at its +very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of +Christianity from the Scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for +these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history +of dogma.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote686" name="footnote686"></a><b>Footnote 686:</b><a href="#footnotetag686"> (return) </a><p> +The theory that justified a twofold morality in the Church is now completely +legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as Encratite and eschatological, +but as Encratite and philosophical. See, for example, Clement, Strom. III. 12. 82: +VI. 13. 106 etc. Gnosis is the principle of perfection. See Strom. IV. 7. 54: +προκειται δε τοις εις τελειωσιν σπευδουσιν 'η γνωσις 'η λογικη 'ης θεμελιος +'η αγια +τριας πιστις, αγαπη, ελπις.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote687" name="footnote687"></a><b>Footnote 687:</b><a href="#footnotetag687"> (return) </a><p>See the preface to the work περι αρχων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote688" name="footnote688"></a><b>Footnote 688:</b><a href="#footnotetag688"> (return) </a><p> From the conclusion of Hippolytus' Philosophoumena it is also evident how +the Socratic Γνωθι σεαυτον was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and +was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pædag. III. 11. 1.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote689" name="footnote689"></a><b>Footnote 689:</b><a href="#footnotetag689"> (return) </a><p> See Gregory Thaumaturgus' panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive +writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote690" name="footnote690"></a><b>Footnote 690:</b><a href="#footnotetag690"> (return) </a><p> +Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Ουκ εγκρατης +ουτος ετι, αλλ' εν 'εξει γεγονεν απαθειας σχημα θειον επενδυσασθαι αναμενων. +Similar remarks are found in Origen.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote691" name="footnote691"></a><b>Footnote 691:</b><a href="#footnotetag691"> (return) </a><p> +In many passages of Clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still +more pronounced form than in Origen. The boldest expression of it is Strom. +IV. 22. 136. This passage is quoted above on p. 328.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote692" name="footnote692"></a><b>Footnote 692:</b><a href="#footnotetag692"> (return) </a><p>See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote693" name="footnote693"></a><b>Footnote 693:</b><a href="#footnotetag693"> (return) </a><p> +See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen's commentaries are continually interrupted by +similar outbursts of feeling.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote694" name="footnote694"></a><b>Footnote 694:</b><a href="#footnotetag694"> (return) </a><p> On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149-155: VII. +10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: +'ουτως 'ο τω κυριω πειθομενος και τη δοθειση δι' αυτου κατακολουθησας +προφητεια τελεως εκτελειται κατ' εικονα του διδασκαλου εν σαρκι περιπολων +Θεος. But note what a distinction Clement makes between 'ο Θεος and the +perfect man in VII. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen +does this also.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote695" name="footnote695"></a><b>Footnote 695:</b><a href="#footnotetag695"> (return) </a><p> +Gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were +read in Origen's school, and that every part of these works that would stand the +test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded, "because these +overpass the limits of human thought." However, Origen did not judge philosophers +in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly, +he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, l.c., p. 133, Denis l.c. Introd.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote696" name="footnote696"></a><b>Footnote 696:</b><a href="#footnotetag696"> (return) </a><p> See, for example, c. Cels. V. 43: VII. 47, 59 sq. He compared Plato and +other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote697" name="footnote697"></a><b>Footnote 697:</b><a href="#footnotetag697"> (return) </a><p>See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote698" name="footnote698"></a><b>Footnote 698:</b><a href="#footnotetag698"> (return) </a><p>C. Cels. V. 43.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote699" name="footnote699"></a><b>Footnote 699:</b><a href="#footnotetag699"> (return) </a><p> One of Origen's main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in +the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has +come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some +to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian +ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel +but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has +been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind, +and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual +state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations +of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled +with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naïve and inappropriate +even for that time. But he could already estimate the relative progress made +by mankind within the Church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf +between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to Christ. +He expressly declared, c. Cels. III. 78, that the Christianity which is fitted for +the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but +only in a relative, sense; that the "common man", as he expresses himself, must +be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can +only be communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. The +very fact, however, that the Logos in Jesus Christ has condescended so to act is +to Origen a proof of the universality of Christianity. Moreover, many of the +wonderful phenomena reported in the Holy Scriptures belong in his opinion to +the veiled forms and images. He is very far from doing violence to his reason +here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, +visionary states etc. His standpoint in this case is wholly that of Celsus (see +particularly the instructive disquisition in I. 48), in so far as he is convinced that +many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual +names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. Cels. V. 45). +The views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or +<i>sacramentum</i> +are those of the philosophers of the age. He thinks, however, that each +individual case requires to be examined, that there can be no miracles not in +accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher +order. As the letter of the precepts in both Testaments frequently contains things +contrary to reason (see περι αρχων IV. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the +spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. +§ 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element +from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: +"Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus +sanctus procuravit, sed ... eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. +Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, +quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ suæ arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non +parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolates, vel intercisus per +impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ +interioris examen.") In all such cases Origen makes uniform use of the two points +of view, that God wished to present something even to the simple and to incite +the more advanced to spiritual investigations. In some passages, however, the +former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that +case it is only the second that applies. Origen therefore was very far from finding +the literal content of Scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest +sense, the letter is not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, +the critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with the +Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of Scripture +and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve +both the unity of God and the harmony of revelation. Herein, both in this case +and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum +I. 9-12. After appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, +Persians, Syrians, and Indians—the mythical religion of the multitude and the +mystery-religion of the initiated—he lays down exactly the same distinction +within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus that the Christians were +obliged to accept everything without examination. With regard to the mythical +form of Christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions +of this type. Since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither +time nor talent for philosophy, ποια αν αλλη βελτιων μεθοδος προς το τοις πολλοις +βοηθησαι 'ευρεθειη, της απο του Ιησου τοις εθνεσι παραδοθεισης (l.c., 9). This +thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could +have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions +have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind the religions. +But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies in the +acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and +divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest +knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. In +this claim Origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the +initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical +greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same +direction and rejected polytheism.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote700" name="footnote700"></a><b>Footnote 700:</b><a href="#footnotetag700"> (return) </a><p> +Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: "Origen in point of method differs +most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise +Scriptural basis of his ideas."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote701" name="footnote701"></a><b>Footnote 701:</b><a href="#footnotetag701"> (return) </a><p> +Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical +method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On +Origen's hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried, +l.c., pp. 351-62. Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book +of περι αρχων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote702" name="footnote702"></a><b>Footnote 702:</b><a href="#footnotetag702"> (return) </a><p>See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote703" name="footnote703"></a><b>Footnote 703:</b><a href="#footnotetag703"> (return) </a><p> A full presentation of Origen's theology would require many hundreds of +pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, +and associated with the Holy Scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, +ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be +drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by Origen allowed +the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. The case was similar +with Clement before him, and also with Tertullian. This is a necessary result +of "Scripture theology" when one takes it up in earnest. Tertullian assumes, for +example, that there must be a Christian doctrine of dreams. Why? Because we +read of dreams in the Holy Scriptures.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote704" name="footnote704"></a><b>Footnote 704:</b><a href="#footnotetag704"> (return) </a><p> +In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): επεμφθη ουν Θεος +λογος καθο μεν ιατρος τοις 'αμαρτωλοις, καθο δε διδασκαλος θειων μυστηριον τοις +ηδη καθαροις και μηκετι 'αμαρτανουσιν. See also what follows. In Comment. in +John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from +the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22 +(Lomm. I. p. 43): και μακαριοι γε 'οσοι δεομενοι του 'υιου του Θεου τοιουτοι +γεγονασιν, 'ως μηκετι αυτου χραζειν ιατρου τους κακως 'εχοντας θεραπευοντος, μηδε +ποιμενος, μηδε απολυτρωσεως, αλλα σοφιας και λογου και δικαιοσυνης, 'η ει τι αλλο +τοις δια τελειοτητα χωρειν αυτου τα καλλιστα δυναμενοις. Read also c. Cels. II. +66, 69: IV. 15, 18: VI. 68. These passages show that the crucified Christ is no +longer of any account to the Gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the +incidents described in the Gospels. Clement, too, really regards Christ as of no +importance to Gnostics except as a teacher.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote705" name="footnote705"></a><b>Footnote 705:</b><a href="#footnotetag705"> (return) </a><p> Comment, in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p, 20. The "mysteries" of Christ is the +technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. For, in respect +of the form given to it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has +to solve. What is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority +(by the believer) or as a soluble problem. One thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, +something in itself evident and intelligible.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote706" name="footnote706"></a><b>Footnote 706:</b><a href="#footnotetag706"> (return) </a><p>See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote707" name="footnote707"></a><b>Footnote 707:</b><a href="#footnotetag707"> (return) </a><p> To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. +of περι αρχων and c. Cels. VI. 53-59. He is convinced (1) that the world is +not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from +them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the +opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only +evil will (see c. Cels. IV. 66: VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided +distinction between that which is bad and evils. As for the latter he admits that +they partly originate from God, in which case they are designed as means of +training and punishment. But he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in +view of individual passages of Holy Scripture and of natural experience. There +are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as +means of training. Here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even +with respect to the power of God. There are evils which are a necessary consequence +of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: τα κακα εκ +παρακολουθησεως γεγενηται της προς τα προηγουμενα): "Evils, in the strict sense, +are not created by God; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, +well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; +as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without +chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the +dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings;" (l.c., c. 55). +Celsus also might have written in this strain. The religious, absolute view is here +replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the +best possible. See the Theodicy in περι αρχων III. 17-22. (Here, and also in +other parts, Origen's Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, l.c., +p. 626 sq. The two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because +their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational +interpretation to tradition.) But "for the great mass it is sufficient when they are +told that evil has not its origin in God" (IV. 66). The case is similar with that +which is really bad. It is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is +bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable +from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (IV. 66, see also III, 42: +το κυριως μιαρον απο κακιας τοιουτον εστι. Φυσις δε σωματος ου μιαρα ου γαρ +'η φυσις σωματος εστι, το γεννητικον της μιαροτητος εχει την κακιαν); but a closer +examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 6l) because error is +inseparable +from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes +evil unavoidable (VII. 50). Sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary +<i>prius</i>. This thought, which is also not foreign to Irenæus, is developed by Origen +with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in +order to justify God's ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time +began (see below).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote708" name="footnote708"></a><b>Footnote 708:</b><a href="#footnotetag708"> (return) </a><p> +See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift +fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.)</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote709" name="footnote709"></a><b>Footnote 709:</b><a href="#footnotetag709"> (return) </a><p> +The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former +makes an æon or, in other words, a part of the divine <i>pleroma</i>, itself fall, and +that he +does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen's system cannot be +made out with complete clearness from the work περι αρχων, because he +endeavoured +to treat each of the first three parts as a whole. Origen's four principles are God, +the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought +into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows +the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the +world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, +punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to +give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book +treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle +with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the +restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no +"principle"; but the incarnation is treated of in II. 6. The teachers of Valentinus' +school accordingly appear more Christian when contrasted with Origen. If we read +the great work περι αρχων, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries +connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the +ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted +in details all possible views down to the most naive myths, and how he on the +one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the +other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of +his abstract creations. But the problem that confronts us in Origen is that presented +by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis l.c., p. 613: +"Toutes les théories d'Origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l'état intellectuel +et moral du siècle où il a paru"). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who, +like Augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the +course of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by its greatest men, +sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of +the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. People were anxious +to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about +giving up any article of tradition. The boldness of Origen, judged as a Greek +philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. This made him all +the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. +This conservatism welded together ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek culture into +a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote710" name="footnote710"></a><b>Footnote 710:</b><a href="#footnotetag710"> (return) </a><p> The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging +to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex. c. Cels. II. 37); but, like the Apologists, he +found it of great value. As far as the philosophers are concerned, Origen always +bore in mind the principle expressed in c. Cels. VII. 46: +προς ταυτα δ'ημεις φησομεν +'οι μελετησαντες μηδενι απεχθανεσθαι των καλως λεγομενων; καν 'οι 'εξω της +πιστεως λεγωυσι καλως. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has +not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but +also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. +But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen's attitude to the Greek philosophers is much +more reserved than that of Clement.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote711" name="footnote711"></a><b>Footnote 711:</b><a href="#footnotetag711"> (return) </a><p> +See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote712" name="footnote712"></a><b>Footnote 712:</b><a href="#footnotetag712"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων preface</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote713" name="footnote713"></a><b>Footnote 713:</b><a href="#footnotetag713"> (return) </a><p> On Origen's exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff., Bigg, +l.c. p. 131 ff. On the distinction between his application of the allegorical method +and that of Clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote714" name="footnote714"></a><b>Footnote 714:</b><a href="#footnotetag714"> (return) </a><p> Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of Genesis. +Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote715" name="footnote715"></a><b>Footnote 715:</b><a href="#footnotetag715"> (return) </a><p> +Bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named Origen's allegorism "Biblical alchemy".</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote716" name="footnote716"></a><b>Footnote 716:</b><a href="#footnotetag716"> (return) </a><p> To ascertain the pneumatic sense, Origen frequently drew analogies between +the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. He is thus a forerunner of +modern idealistic philosophers, for example, Drummond: "To Origen allegorism is +only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature" (Bigg, p. 134).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote717" name="footnote717"></a><b>Footnote 717:</b><a href="#footnotetag717"> (return) </a><p>See Hom in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote718" name="footnote718"></a><b>Footnote 718:</b><a href="#footnotetag718"> (return) </a><p> +Since Origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the Scriptures, +he has also a much more favourable opinion of the Jewish people and of the +observance of the law than the earlier Christian authors (but see Iren. and Tertull.). +At bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the +faith of the simple Christians. The Apostles also kept the law for a time, and it +was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. They +were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the Jews. On +the other hand, he considers the New Testament a higher stage than the Old both +in its literal and its spiritual sense. See c. Cels. II. 1-4, 7, 75: IV. 31 sq: V. 10, +30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote719" name="footnote719"></a><b>Footnote 719:</b><a href="#footnotetag719"> (return) </a><p> In opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of God, recommended +by Alcinous (c. 12), Maximus Tyr. (XVII. 8), and Celsus (by analysis [apophat.], +synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), Origen, c. Cels. VII. 42, 44, appeals to the +fact that the Christian knows God better, namely, in his incarnate Son. But he +himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote720" name="footnote720"></a><b>Footnote 720:</b><a href="#footnotetag720"> (return) </a><p> In defining the superessential nature of the One, Origen did not go so far +as the Basilidians (Philosoph. VII. 20, 21) or as Plotinus. No doubt he also regards +the Deity as επεκεινα της ουσιας (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; περι αρχων +I. 1; +Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inasmuch +as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V. +12, 13), but he is not βυθος and σιγη, +being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, +and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the νους) before he can come +to himself. +Accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to God as +the later Neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed +to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neoplatonists +and Philo before them. Origen is no mystic. In accordance with this +conception Origen and Clement say that the perfect knowledge of God can indeed +be derived from the Logos alone (c. Cels VII. 48, 49: VI. 65-73; Strom. V. +12. 85: VI. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation +(c. Cels. VII. 46). Hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of God (Protrept. +VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of God furnished +by Philo (περι αρχων I. 1. 6; c. Cels I. 23). The relatively correct predicates +of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels I. 23), his +absolute spirituality (πνευμα ασωματος, αυλος, ασχηματιστος)—this is maintained +both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. περι αρχων I. 1, +Origen's polemic against Melito's conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11. 68: +V. 12. 82,—his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; +the eternity of God itself, however, is to be conceived, according to +Clement, as that which is above time; see Strom. II. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. +All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See +Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote721" name="footnote721"></a><b>Footnote 721:</b><a href="#footnotetag721"> (return) </a><p>Orig. περι αρχων II. 1. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote722" name="footnote722"></a><b>Footnote 722:</b><a href="#footnotetag722"> (return) </a><p>C. Cels V. 23.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote723" name="footnote723"></a><b>Footnote 723:</b><a href="#footnotetag723"> (return) </a><p>L.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote724" name="footnote724"></a><b>Footnote 724:</b><a href="#footnotetag724"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων II. 9. 1: "Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero +creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; +quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. +Quod si fuerit utique nee contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. +Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit." In Matth., +t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote725" name="footnote725"></a><b>Footnote 725:</b><a href="#footnotetag725"> (return) </a><p>See above, p. 343, note 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote726" name="footnote726"></a><b>Footnote 726:</b><a href="#footnotetag726"> (return) </a><p>See c. Cels. II. 20.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote727" name="footnote727"></a><b>Footnote 727:</b><a href="#footnotetag727"> (return) </a><p> +Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen περι αρχων II. 5, especially +§ 3 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote728" name="footnote728"></a><b>Footnote 728:</b><a href="#footnotetag728"> (return) </a><p> See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that +this view is a <i>rapprochement</i> to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch's opinion, +l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be +taken into account.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote729" name="footnote729"></a><b>Footnote 729:</b><a href="#footnotetag729"> (return) </a><p> Clement's doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps +different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement +assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili +Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and +weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding +(see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λεγεται μεν—these are said to have been +the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes—και 'ο 'υιος λογος 'ομωνυμως τω πατρικω +λογω, αλλ' ουχ ουτος εστιν 'ο σαρξ γενομενος, ουδε μεν 'ο πατρωος λογος, αλλα +δυναμις τις του Θεου, οιον απποροια του λογου αυτου νους γενομενος τας των +ανθρωπων καρδιας διαπεφοιτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God +and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely +hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the +disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical +discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a +λογος ενδιαθετος and προφορικος (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, +l.c., p. 145 against +Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can +scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that +of the Son. "The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which +unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper." If the Adumbrationes are +to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression +'ομοουσιος +for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 +f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked +that men are not μερος θεου και τω Θεω 'ομοουσιοι, and because he says +in Strom. IV. 13. 91: ει επι το καταλυσαι θανατον αφικνειται το διαφερον γενος, +ουχ 'ο Χριστος τον θανατον κατηργησεν, ει μη και αυτος αυτοις 'ομοουσιος λεχθειη. +One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation +of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and +with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: 'ο θειος λογος, 'ο φανερωτατος οντως Θεος, 'ο +τω δεσποτη των 'ολων εξισωθεις). In Strom. V. I. 1 Clement emphatically declared +that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: ου μην ουδε 'ο πατηρ ανευ 'υιου +'αμα γαρ τω πατηρ 'υιου πατηρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: 'εν μην το αγεννητον +'ο παντοκρατωρ, εν δε και το προγεννηθεν δι' ου τα παντα εγενετο, and Adumbrat. +in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: "principium generationis +separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit 'quod erat ab initio' +generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis." See besides the +remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεω τα της αγαπης μυστηρια, και τοτε +εποπτευσεις τον κολπον του πατρος, 'ον 'ο μονογενης 'υιος Θεος μονος εξηγησατο εστι +δε και αυτος 'ο Θεος αγαπη και δι' αγαπην 'ημιν ανεκραθη και το μεν αρρητον +αυτου πατηρ, το δε 'ημιν συμπαθες γεγονε μητηρ αγαπησας 'ο πατηρ εθηλυνθη, και +τουτου μεγα σημειον, 'ον αυτος εγεννησεν εξ αυτου και 'ο τεχθεις εξ αγαπης καρπος +αγαπη. But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son +κτισμα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called +"primitivæ +virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam". That +is exactly Origen's doctrine, and Zahn (l.c., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. +14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20. The Son stands at the head of the +series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless +specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general +that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be +traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence +like Strom. IV. 25. 156 ('ο μεν ουν Θεος αναποδεικτος ων ουκ εστιν επιστημονικος, +'ο δε 'υιος σοφια τε εστι και επιστημη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. +Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote730" name="footnote730"></a><b>Footnote 730:</b><a href="#footnotetag730"> (return) </a><p> See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch fur protestantische Theologie I. +pp. 193 ff. 369 ff.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote731" name="footnote731"></a><b>Footnote 731:</b><a href="#footnotetag731"> (return) </a><p> +It is very remarkable that Origen περι αρχων I. 2. 1 in his presentation of +the Logos doctrine, started with the person of Christ, though he immediately +abandoned this starting-point "Primo illud nos oportere scire", so this chapter +begins, "Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius +patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione +suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote732" name="footnote732"></a><b>Footnote 732:</b><a href="#footnotetag732"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων I. 2. 2, 6.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote733" name="footnote733"></a><b>Footnote 733:</b><a href="#footnotetag733"> (return) </a><p> The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). +See c. Cels. V. 39: Και δευτερον ουν λεγωμεν Θεον ιστωσαν, 'οτι τον δευτερον +Θεον +ουκ αλλο τι λεγομεν, 'η την περιεκτικην πασων αρετων αρετην και τον περιεκτικον +παντος 'ουτινοσουν λογου των κατα φυσιν και προηγουμενως γεγενημενων.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote734" name="footnote734"></a><b>Footnote 734:</b><a href="#footnotetag734"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have +been to the effect that the Son is indeed αγαθος, but not, like the Father, +απαραλλακτως +αγαθος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote735" name="footnote735"></a><b>Footnote 735:</b><a href="#footnotetag735"> (return) </a><p> Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad +Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote736" name="footnote736"></a><b>Footnote 736:</b><a href="#footnotetag736"> (return) </a><p> +L.c.: "Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic +nihilominus +et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeæ esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriæ +omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of +the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. +Aporrhoea enim 'ομοουσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex +quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor." In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in +Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that <i>we</i> are not homousios with God: +επιστησωμεν δε, ει με σφοδρα εστιν ασεβες 'ομοουσιος τη αγεννητω φυσει και +παμμακαρια ειναι λεγειν τους προσκυνουντας εν πνευματι τω Θεω. On the meaning +of 'ομοουσιος see Zahn, Marcell., pp. 11-32. The conception decidedly +excludes the +possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it +says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they +possess it. On the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment +the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitarian +danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen's +teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. in +Jerem. no. 2: Το μεν 'υποκειμενον 'εν εστι, ταις δε επινοιαις τα πολλα ονοματα επι +διαφορων. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when Origen (for ex. +in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of Father and Son to unity in feeling +and in will. The charge of Ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see +Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p. 367).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote737" name="footnote737"></a><b>Footnote 737:</b><a href="#footnotetag737"> (return) </a><p>Ουκ εστιν οτε ουκ ην, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote738" name="footnote738"></a><b>Footnote 738:</b><a href="#footnotetag738"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: "Nunquam +est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, +ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam +illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando +noa erat." See the comprehensive disquisition in +περι αρχων IV. 28, where we find +the sentence: "hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non +fuit, cum venia audiendum est" etc. See further in Jerem. IX. 4, Lomm. XV., +p. 212: το απαυγασμα της δοξης ουχι 'απαξ γεγεννηται, και ουχι γενναται ... +και αει γενναται 'ο σωτηρ 'υπο του πατρος; see also other passages.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote739" name="footnote739"></a><b>Footnote 739:</b><a href="#footnotetag739"> (return) </a><p>See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote740" name="footnote740"></a><b>Footnote 740:</b><a href="#footnotetag740"> (return) </a><p> +In περι αρχων IV. 28 the <i>prolatio</i> is expressly rejected (see also I. 2, +4) as +well as the "conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium" and the "procreatio +ex nullis substantibus."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote741" name="footnote741"></a><b>Footnote 741:</b><a href="#footnotetag741"> (return) </a><p>L.c. I. 2. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote742" name="footnote742"></a><b>Footnote 742:</b><a href="#footnotetag742"> (return) </a><p>L.c. I. 2. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote743" name="footnote743"></a><b>Footnote 743:</b><a href="#footnotetag743"> (return) </a><p> +De orat. 15: Ετερος κατ' ουσιαν και 'υποκειμενον 'ο 'υιος εστι του πατρος. This, +however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the +parsonal distinction.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote744" name="footnote744"></a><b>Footnote 744:</b><a href="#footnotetag744"> (return) </a><p> +C. Cels. VIII. 12.: δυο τη 'υποστασει πραγματα. This was frequently urged +against the Monarchians in Origen's commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. +The Son exists κατ' ιδιαν της ουσιας περιγραφην. Not that Origen has not yet the +later terminology ουσια, 'υποστασις, 'υποκειμενον, προσωπον. We find three +hypostases +in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote745" name="footnote745"></a><b>Footnote 745:</b><a href="#footnotetag745"> (return) </a><p> +In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: 'ο Θεος μεν ουν παντη 'εν εστι και απλουν +'ο δε σωτηρ 'ημων δια τα πολλα. The Son is ιδεα ιδεων, συστημα θεωρηματων εν +αυτω(Lomm. I., p. 127).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote746" name="footnote746"></a><b>Footnote 746:</b><a href="#footnotetag746"> (return) </a><p> +See the remarks on the saying: "The Father is greater than I," in Joh. XIII. 25, +Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homoousia +of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote747" name="footnote747"></a><b>Footnote 747:</b><a href="#footnotetag747"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote748" name="footnote748"></a><b>Footnote 748:</b><a href="#footnotetag748"> (return) </a><p>See Περι αρχων I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote749" name="footnote749"></a><b>Footnote 749:</b><a href="#footnotetag749"> (return) </a><p> Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the Logos from +the redeeming work of Christ.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote750" name="footnote750"></a><b>Footnote 750:</b><a href="#footnotetag750"> (return) </a><p> +See περι αρχων præf. and in addition to this Hermas' view of the Spirit.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote751" name="footnote751"></a><b>Footnote 751:</b><a href="#footnotetag751"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but +is to be termed a creature. See also in Job. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: +το 'αγιον +πνευμα δια του λογου εγενετο, πρεσβυτερου (logically) +παρ' αυτο του λογου τυγχανοντος. +Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote752" name="footnote752"></a><b>Footnote 752:</b><a href="#footnotetag752"> (return) </a><p> +See περι αρχων I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the heathen had known the +Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de princip. I. 3: II. 7).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote753" name="footnote753"></a><b>Footnote 753:</b><a href="#footnotetag753"> (return) </a><p>L.c. § 7.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote754" name="footnote754"></a><b>Footnote 754:</b><a href="#footnotetag754"> (return) </a><p> +See Hom. in Num. XII. I, Lomm. X, p. 127: "Est hæc trium distinctio personarum +in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. +Sed horum puteorum unum est fons. Una enim substantia est et natura +trinitatis."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote755" name="footnote755"></a><b>Footnote 755:</b><a href="#footnotetag755"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων præf.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote756" name="footnote756"></a><b>Footnote 756:</b><a href="#footnotetag756"> (return) </a><p> From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, +both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, +Logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. To +Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides +God. But, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from God to men +living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit +on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have +the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and predicates +in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the +theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel that spoke, or the +Son through the angel. See the full discussion in Zahn, Forschungen, III., p. 98 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote757" name="footnote757"></a><b>Footnote 757:</b><a href="#footnotetag757"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων I. 5.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote758" name="footnote758"></a><b>Footnote 758:</b><a href="#footnotetag758"> (return) </a><p>So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote759" name="footnote759"></a><b>Footnote 759:</b><a href="#footnotetag759"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων I. 5. 2.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote760" name="footnote760"></a><b>Footnote 760:</b><a href="#footnotetag760"> (return) </a><p> +It was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the +world. See Comm. in Matth. XV. 27, Lomm. III., p. 384 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote761" name="footnote761"></a><b>Footnote 761:</b><a href="#footnotetag761"> (return) </a><p> +See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II, p. 45: we must not look on the +human spirit as 'ομοουσιος with the divine one. The same had already been +expressly +taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: 'ο Θεος ουδεμιαν εχει προς 'ημας +φυσικην +σχεσιν 'ως 'οι των 'αιρεσεων κτισται θελουσιν. Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does +not exclude God and souls having <i>quodammodo</i> one substance.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote762" name="footnote762"></a><b>Footnote 762:</b><a href="#footnotetag762"> (return) </a><p> +Such is the teaching of Clement and Origen. They repudiated the possession +of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. If such lay in their +essence, these spirits would be unchangeable.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote763" name="footnote763"></a><b>Footnote 763:</b><a href="#footnotetag763"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 2. 10: "Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non +sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens +quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens +ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est." (So the Hermogenes against +whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). "Nam si quis est, qui velit vel +sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum +facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis +vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est." God +would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a προκοπη, and thus +be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote764" name="footnote764"></a><b>Footnote 764:</b><a href="#footnotetag764"> (return) </a><p>Περι αρχων I. 8.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote765" name="footnote765"></a><b>Footnote 765:</b><a href="#footnotetag765"> (return) </a><p> +Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development +that is of growth. See περι αρχων I. 7. Created spirits are also of themselves +immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of God +who can never attach anything material to himself.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote766" name="footnote766"></a><b>Footnote 766:</b><a href="#footnotetag766"> (return) </a><p> +Angels, ideas (see Phot. Biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely +connected together, both according to the theory of Clement and Origen and also +to that of Pantænus before them (see Clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught +that men become angels (Clem. Strom. VI. 13. 107). But the stars also, which +are treated in great detail in περι αρχων I. 7, belong to the number of the +angels. +This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls +was probably set forth by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the transmigration +of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the +Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested +and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. I. sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote767" name="footnote767"></a><b>Footnote 767:</b><a href="#footnotetag767"> (return) </a><p> +Phot. Biblioth. 109: Κλημης πολλους προ του Αδαμ κοσμους τερατευεται. This +cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., περι αρχων II. 3.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote768" name="footnote768"></a><b>Footnote 768:</b><a href="#footnotetag768"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that +happened before time began.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote769" name="footnote769"></a><b>Footnote 769:</b><a href="#footnotetag769"> (return) </a><p> +The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (περι +αρχων II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the +Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: 'υλην αρχρονον δοξαζει); this cannot be noticed in the +Strom.; in fact in VI. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness +of the world. He emphasised the agreement between Plato and Moses in the +doctrine of creation (Strom. II. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). According +to Origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities +(see, <i>e.g.</i>, c. Cels. III. 41).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote770" name="footnote770"></a><b>Footnote 770:</b><a href="#footnotetag770"> (return) </a><p> +This conception has given occasion to compare Origen's system with Buddhism. +Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: "Creation, as the word is commonly +understood, was in Origen's views not the beginning, but an intermediate +phase in human history. Æons rolled away before this world was made; æons +upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons +will run their course, before the end is attained. The one fixed point in this +gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed," "God shall +be all in all." Bigg also rightly points out that Rom. VIII. and 1 Cor. XV. were +for Origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote771" name="footnote771"></a><b>Footnote 771:</b><a href="#footnotetag771"> (return) </a><p> The popular idea of demons and angels was employed by Origen in the +most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of +the world. See περι αρχων III. 2. and numerous passages in the Commentaries +and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of +Hermas and Barnabas. The spirits ascend and descend; each man has his guardian +spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (περι αρχων I. 6). +Accordingly +they are also to be reverenced (θεραπευεσθαι); yet such reverence as belongs +to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. +VIII. 13).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote772" name="footnote772"></a><b>Footnote 772:</b><a href="#footnotetag772"> (return) </a><p> +Clement wrote a special work περι προνοιας (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 +ff.), +and treated at length of προνοια in the Strom.; see Orig. περι αρχων +III. 1; de +orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 81-87: +IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Hom. in Num. XIV., Lomm. X., p. 163: "Nihil otiosum, +nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive +malo ad necessaria." Here and there, however, Origen has qualified the belief in +Providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. Gels. IV. 74).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote773" name="footnote773"></a><b>Footnote 773:</b><a href="#footnotetag773"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων II. 9. 2: "Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. +Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono canere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta +mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret." In +the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition +of evil as ανυποστατον and an argument to the effect that τα πονηρα +are—μη οντα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote774" name="footnote774"></a><b>Footnote 774:</b><a href="#footnotetag774"> (return) </a><p> +Περι αρχων I. 5. 3: III. 6. The devil is the chief of the apostate angels +(c. Cels. IV. 65). As a reasonable being he is a creature of God (l.c., and in +Joh. II. 7, Lomm., l.c.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote775" name="footnote775"></a><b>Footnote 775:</b><a href="#footnotetag775"> (return) </a><p> Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus' attacks on +it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal +spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus' view. If we consider the +plan of the work περι αρχων we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely +an element in the cosmos.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote776" name="footnote776"></a><b>Footnote 776:</b><a href="#footnotetag776"> (return) </a><p> The doctrine of man's threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See +Pædag. III. 1. 1; Strom V. 14. 94: VI. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of Plato). +Origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the +rational part spirit, sometimes ψυχη λογικη, and at other times distinguishes +two +parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his psychology from +the Holy Scriptures. The chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his +assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen one, became as it were a soul, and +can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the +flesh (see περι αρχων III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the +preëxistence +of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin +of the soul.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote777" name="footnote777"></a><b>Footnote 777:</b><a href="#footnotetag777"> (return) </a><p> Clement (see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some +Christian teachers: το μεν κατ' εικονα ευθεως κατα την γενεσιν ειληφεναι +τον ανθρωπον, +το καθ' 'ομοιωσιν δε υστερον κατα την πελειωσιν μελλειν απολαμβανειν. Orig. +c. Cels. IV. 30: εποιητε δ'ο Θεος τον ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα Θεος, αλλ' +ουχι καθ' +'ομοιωσιν ηδη.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote778" name="footnote778"></a><b>Footnote 778:</b><a href="#footnotetag778"> (return) </a><p> This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently +emphasised. One must attain the σωφορσυνη.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote779" name="footnote779"></a><b>Footnote 779:</b><a href="#footnotetag779"> (return) </a><p> This is emphasised throughout. The goodness of God is shown first in his +having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, +which, however, do not endanger freedom. Clem.; Strom. VI. 12, 96: 'ημας εξ 'ημων +αυτων βουλεται σωζεσθαι.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote780" name="footnote780"></a><b>Footnote 780:</b><a href="#footnotetag780"> (return) </a><p> +See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality +of sin in the strongest expressions: c. Cels. III. 61-66: VII. 50; Clem., +Pæd. III. 12. 93: το εξαμαρτανειν πασιν εμφυτον.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote781" name="footnote781"></a><b>Footnote 781:</b><a href="#footnotetag781"> (return) </a><p> +See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: μυριων γουν οντων κατ' αριθμον 'α πρασσουσιν +ανθρωποι σχεδον δυο εισιν αρχαι πασης 'αμαρτιας, αγνοια και ασθενεια, αμφω δε εφ' +'ημιν, των μητε εθελοντων μανθανειν μητε αυ της επιθυμιας κρατειν. Two remedies +correspond to this (102): 'η γνωσις τε και 'η της εκ των γραφων μαρτυριας εναργης +αποδειξις and 'η κατα λογον ασκησις εκ πιστεως τε και φοβου παιδαγωγουμενη, or +otherwise expressed: 'η θεωρια 'η επιστημονικη and 'η πραξις +which lead to perfect love.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote782" name="footnote782"></a><b>Footnote 782:</b><a href="#footnotetag782"> (return) </a><p> Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and +there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom. VI. 9. 76, it is said of +the friend of God, the true Gnostic, that God has destined (προωρισεν) him to +sonship +before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote783" name="footnote783"></a><b>Footnote 783:</b><a href="#footnotetag783"> (return) </a><p>C. Cels. III. 69.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote784" name="footnote784"></a><b>Footnote 784:</b><a href="#footnotetag784"> (return) </a><p> It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have +the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. +See c. Cels. IV. 40; περι αρχων IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later +writings, +after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Cæsarea and prevailed on +himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary +sin originating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting Fall. Like +Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in +sexual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII. 4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 +(Bigg, p. 202 f.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote785" name="footnote785"></a><b>Footnote 785:</b><a href="#footnotetag785"> (return) </a><p> +Nevertheless Origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for +their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. See in Joh. XIII. 43 ad fin; +II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote786" name="footnote786"></a><b>Footnote 786:</b><a href="#footnotetag786"> (return) </a><p>Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote787" name="footnote787"></a><b>Footnote 787:</b><a href="#footnotetag787"> (return) </a><p> See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim +and all spiritualists.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote788" name="footnote788"></a><b>Footnote 788:</b><a href="#footnotetag788"> (return) </a><p> See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische +Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, +1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote789" name="footnote789"></a><b>Footnote 789:</b><a href="#footnotetag789"> (return) </a><p> With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in +Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter +describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, +everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy +Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception +that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to +the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ's death on the cross, +with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg +(p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul's time that +gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important +of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be +considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ +(Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the +matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered +to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that +all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him +who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also +a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise +Exhort, ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. +VI., pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom +paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen's time; +it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite +theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of +a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. +By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right +cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ's soul in +exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, +as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ's soul, because +a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain +and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but +overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion +in different places (see Exhort ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., +p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in +Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative +method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. +No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability +of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. +We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity +towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered +as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the +above-mentioned conceptions of Christ's work were, moreover, worked out by +Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences +from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought +as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as strongly as ever to +the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the +phrase, "it is written", as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. +II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing +things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In +general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many +ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere +found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While +he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: +ευσεβεστεροι εσμεν και Θεον και τα αγαλματα σεβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. +XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism +into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote790" name="footnote790"></a><b>Footnote 790:</b><a href="#footnotetag790"> (return) </a><p> +See above, p. 342. note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no +importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement +and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are +to most Gnostics. Christianity is μαθησις and μυσταγωγια and it is +the one because +it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, +to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Αλλα +γαρ και την καταβασαν εις ανθρωπινην φυσιν και εις ανθρωπινας περιστασεις δυναμιν, +και αναλαβουσαν ψυχην και σωμα ανθρωπινον, 'εωρων εκ του πιστευεσθαι μετα των +θειοτερων συμβαλλομενην εις σωτηριαν τοις πιστευουσιν ορωσιν, απ' εκεινου ηρξατο +θεια και ανθρωπινη συνυφαινεσθαι φυσις εν η ανθρωπινη τη προς το θειοτερον κοινωνια +γενηται θεια ουκ εν μονω τω Ιησου, αλλα και πασι τοις μετα τοο πιστευειν αναλαμβανουσι +βιον, 'ον Ιησους εδιδαξενα.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote791" name="footnote791"></a><b>Footnote 791:</b><a href="#footnotetag791"> (return) </a><p> +From this also we can very clearly understand Origen's aversion to the early +Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work +of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a most +important influence on his frame of mind and on politics.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote792" name="footnote792"></a><b>Footnote 792:</b><a href="#footnotetag792"> (return) </a><p> +Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. +109) reproached him with these (μη σαρκωθηναι τον λογον αλλα δοξαι), and they +may be proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): "fertur in traditionibus—namely, +in the Acta of Lucius—quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat +extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo +reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli," and likewise from Strom. VI. +9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement's repudiation of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does +not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, +and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This +teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted +the apparent reality of Christ's body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew +neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the +Docetists (Strom. VI. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen's case +appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote793" name="footnote793"></a><b>Footnote 793:</b><a href="#footnotetag793"> (return) </a><p> See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal +passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. +9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a +human soul was founded on a μυστικη παραδοσις of the Church, and was not first +broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real +θεανθρωπος +in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos +within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on +many occasions. See περι αρχων IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in +Christ +and yet, as before, the Logos operated wherever he wished (l.c., 30): "non ita +sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra +conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac +vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius cœrcita et conscripta brevitatem +nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse +confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus +a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio." On the perfect +ethical union of Jesus' soul with the Logos see περι αρχων II. 6. 3: "anima Iesu +ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et +tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum +ipso principaliter unus spiritus;" II. 6. 5: "anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, +ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, +ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor +omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat +positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam." The sinlessness of this +soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man +arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in +the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal <i>capax est frigoris et caloris</i> +so the soul is capable of deification. "Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, +deus est," "nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest" (l.c.). "Dilectionis merito +anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur." (II. 6. 4). Τις μαλλον της Ιησου +ψυχης η καν παραπλησιως κεκολληται τω κυριω; 'οπερ ει 'ουτως εχει ουκ εισι δυο 'η +ψυχη του Ιησου προς τον πασης κτισεως πρωτοτοκον Θεον λογον (c. Cels. VI. 47). +The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in περι αρχων II. 6. 2: +"Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante—non enim possibile erat dei +naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere—nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media +exsistente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus +anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum." Even +during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, +acquired therefore wonderful powers, and appeared differently to men according to +their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod. 7); cf. c. +Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in +III. 41: "Ον μεν νομιζομεν και πεπεισμεθα αρχηθεν ειναι Θεον και 'υιον Θεου, +ουτος +'ο αυτολογος εστι και 'η αυτοσοφια και 'η αυτοαληθεια το δε θνητον αυτου σωμα και +την ανθρωπινην εν αυτω ψυχην τη προς εκεινον ου μονον κοινωνια, αλλα και 'ενωσει +και ανακρασει, τα μεγιστα φαμεν προσειληφεναι και της εκεινου θετητος κεκοινωνηκοτα +εις Θεον μεταβεβηκεναι." Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical +doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the +Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: ει 'υγιη τα τοιαυτα, τι +θαυμαστον, την ποιοτητα του θνητου κατα τον Ιησουν σωματος προνοια Θεου βουληθεντος +μεταβαλειν εις αιθεριον και θειαν ποιοτητα; The man is now the same as +the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq.; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, +Lomm. XV., p. 288: ει και ην ανθρωπος, αλλα νυν ουδαμως εστιν ανθρωπος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote794" name="footnote794"></a><b>Footnote 794:</b><a href="#footnotetag794"> (return) </a><p> +In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human +natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, +where any αλλαττεσθαι και μεταπλαττεσθαι of the Logos +is decidedly rejected; +for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen's case we may speak of a <i>communicatio +idiomatum</i> (see Bigg, p. 190 f.).</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote795" name="footnote795"></a><b>Footnote 795:</b><a href="#footnotetag795"> (return) </a><p>In opposition to Redepenning.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote796" name="footnote796"></a><b>Footnote 796:</b><a href="#footnotetag796"> (return) </a><p> This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III, c. 22-43, where +Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ +is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. +See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote797" name="footnote797"></a><b>Footnote 797:</b><a href="#footnotetag797"> (return) </a><p> +A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ +is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: παντα ονινησιν 'ο κυριος και παντα ωφελει και +'ως ανθρωπος και 'ως Θεος, τα μεν 'αμαρτηματα 'ως Θεος αφιεις, εις δε το μη +εξαμαρτανειν +παιδαγωγων 'ως ανθρωπος.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote798" name="footnote798"></a><b>Footnote 798:</b><a href="#footnotetag798"> (return) </a><p> +"Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum" is the fundamental +idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); "voluntas humana præcedit". +In Ezech. hom. I. c. II: "In tua potestate positum est, ut sis palea vel frumentum". +But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. +series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: "Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia +fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali +creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et +firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet"; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in +Rom. IX. 3, Lomm VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: 'ο Θεος 'ημας +εξ 'ημων αυτων βουλεται σωζεσθαι.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote799" name="footnote799"></a><b>Footnote 799:</b><a href="#footnotetag799"> (return) </a><p>This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote800" name="footnote800"></a><b>Footnote 800:</b><a href="#footnotetag800"> (return) </a><p> +See Clem, Strom. V. I. 7: χαριτι σωζομεθα, ουκ ανευ μεντοι των καλων εργων.. +VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: ειτε το εν 'ημιν αυτεξουσιου εις γνωσιν αφικομενον +ταγαθου σκιρτα τε και πηδα 'υπερ τα εσκαμμενα, πλην ου χαριτος ανευ της εξαιρετου +πτερουται τε και ανισταται και ανω των 'υπερκειμενων αιρεται 'η ψυχη; The +amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis cliv. salv. 21. Orig. περι αρχων. III. +2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est +ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque peracitur. +III. 2. 5, I. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: +το του λογικου αγαθον μικτον +εστιν εκ τε της προαιρεσεως αυτου και της συμπνεουσης θειας δυναμεως τω τα αλλιστα +προελομενω. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enlightenment; but +this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account +see Landerer in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, Vol. II, Part 3, p. 500 ff., +and Worter, <i>Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin</i>, 1860.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote801" name="footnote801"></a><b>Footnote 801:</b><a href="#footnotetag801"> (return) </a><p> This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but +it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency +to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): "Origen, the +first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many +aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, +the Victorines, and the author of the 'De imitatione,' of Tauler and +Molinos and Madame de Guyon."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote802" name="footnote802"></a><b>Footnote 802:</b><a href="#footnotetag802"> (return) </a><p>See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote803" name="footnote803"></a><b>Footnote 803:</b><a href="#footnotetag803"> (return) </a><p> See <i>e.g.</i>, Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. +25-32; Orig. +de orat. 22 sq.—the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. This exegesis begins with +the words: "It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called +Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; +for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking ... Constant and +unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant."</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote804" name="footnote804"></a><b>Footnote 804:</b><a href="#footnotetag804"> (return) </a><p>See above, p. 339 f.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote805" name="footnote805"></a><b>Footnote 805:</b><a href="#footnotetag805"> (return) </a><p>See περι αρχων II. 11.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote806" name="footnote806"></a><b>Footnote 806:</b><a href="#footnotetag806"> (return) </a><p> +See περι αρχων II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, +which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted +heretical. We see from c. Cels V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church +doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote807" name="footnote807"></a><b>Footnote 807:</b><a href="#footnotetag807"> (return) </a><p>See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote808" name="footnote808"></a><b>Footnote 808:</b><a href="#footnotetag808"> (return) </a><p>Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote809" name="footnote809"></a><b>Footnote 809:</b><a href="#footnotetag809"> (return) </a><p> C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, +quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque +purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: φαμεν δ' ημεις αγιαζειν το πυρ, ου τα κρεα, +αλλα τας αμαρτωλους ψυχας, πυρ ου το παμφαγον και βαναυσον, αλλα το φρονιμον +λεγοντες (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), το δυκνουμενον δια ψυχηα της +διερχομενης το +πυρ. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage +between the punishments in hell and <i>regnum dei</i>.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote810" name="footnote810"></a><b>Footnote 810:</b><a href="#footnotetag810"> (return) </a><p>See περι αρχων II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote811" name="footnote811"></a><b>Footnote 811:</b><a href="#footnotetag811"> (return) </a><p>See περι αρχων I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c. Cels. VI. 26.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote812" name="footnote812"></a><b>Footnote 812:</b><a href="#footnotetag812"> (return) </a><p> On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. II. 77 and other passages. +Origen does not mention them, so far as I know.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote813" name="footnote813"></a><b>Footnote 813:</b><a href="#footnotetag813"> (return) </a><p>c. Cels. l.c.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote814" name="footnote814"></a><b>Footnote 814:</b><a href="#footnotetag814"> (return) </a><p>We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.</p></blockquote> + +<blockquote class="footnote"><a id="footnote815" name="footnote815"></a><b>Footnote 815:</b><a href="#footnotetag815"> (return) </a><p> See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio +habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.</p></blockquote> +<hr class="full" /> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7), by +Adolph Harnack + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF DOGMA, VOLUME 2 (OF 7) *** + +***** This file should be named 19613-h.htm or 19613-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/6/1/19613/ + +Produced by Dave Maddock, David King, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |